The IPCC; Never Has So Much Been Made Out of So Little by So Many at So Great A Cost

(Apologies to Winston Churchill the brave Battle of Britain people.)

Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the people who formulated the structure that directed their research, constantly manipulated the data and the methods to predetermine the results. It began with the definition of climate change given to them as Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This involved overstating and misrepresenting the amount of atmospheric CO2 currently, and in the past. It also included misrepresentation of its movement through the so-called carbon cycle.

You can pick any segment of the Carbon Cycle they show in Figure 1 (Their Figure 6-1, Fifth Assessment Report) and none of it is based on actual measures, that is real data; everything is an estimate and can’t qualify even as an educated guess.

clip_image002

Figure 1

As they explain,

Numbers represent reservoir mass, also called ‘carbon stocks’ in PgC (1 PgC = 1015 gC) and annual carbon exchange fluxes (in PgC yr–1)

What they should say is that every single number is a very crude estimate biased to support their claims of an unproven hypothesis that human CO2 is causing global warming (AGW). They must provide a bold disclaimer that they have no actual measurements of anything, there is no real data. They provide a vague disclaimer as Box 2.1 “Uncertainty in Observational Records” in Chapter 2 of the Physical Science Basis Report but this is misleading and deflects from the real issue.

The vast majority of historical (and modern) weather observations were not made for climate monitoring purposes.

So, even the weather data is inadequate or inappropriate. They must also say that virtually none of the other data even exists.

The black numbers represent the estimated reservoir mass and exchange fluxes for the time prior to the Industrial era (1750). That in itself is ridiculous. Even today, we have no idea of fossil fuel reserves. Saudi Arabia has consistently refused to disclose the level of its reserves. You would think people who evolved from the Limits to Growth crowd, would know with their failed “peak oil” contention not to rely on any global resource statistic. A standard project in my geopolitics class was for students to determine the amount of fossil fuel reserves in Canada and the world. They were stunned by the range of numbers they get. When you consider that the two supposedly most accurate estimates of world population (the US Census and the UN) differ by almost 6 million people (2011), you get a measure of the problem. We don’t have even close to accurate estimates today, let alone 268 years ago. But then, these are the people that tell you, with a frightening and utterly unjustified degree of certainty, that they know what the global temperature was in 1750.

I will only look at one segment of the diagram labelled Vegetation and Soils. I challenge anybody to give me within even 20 percent an estimate of the extent of world forests in 1750. However, the IPCC do just that.

The terrestrial biosphere reservoir contains carbon in organic compounds in vegetation living biomass (450 to 650 PgC; Prentice et al., 2001) and in dead organic matter in litter and soils (1500 to 2400 PgC; Batjes, 1996).

Remember, this was close to the nadir of the Little Ice Age (LIA). My research for central Canada, based on accurate maps, showed that the tree-line at the northern edge of the Boreal forest moved some 200 km between 1772 and 1972. This is a movement of 1 km per year in one of the harshest growing environments in the world. It also represents a massive addition to the biomass in just this vegetative type

One of the great natural paradoxes is that the tropical rainforest exists on the most impoverished soils in the world. Understanding why this occurs underscores why the IPCC claims are so wrong. Most people know there are two basic tree classifications, coniferous evergreen, and deciduous – leaves, no leaves. The tropical rainforest is both. It is never without leaves, but leaves are falling all the time and constantly being replaced. Without this condition, the forest could not exist. The climate has an annual precipitation of 2000 mm or more and year-round temperatures averaging between 20 and 30°C.

These conditions literally leach the soil of most minerals leaving only iron and some aluminum. This is the red laterite soils of tropical regions (Figure 2). Soils that if exposed by removal of vegetation, either erode rapidly in the heavy rain or bake iron hard in the tropical sun.

clip_image004

Figure 2: Laterite

Basically, the rainforest exists because it perpetuates itself. The leaves are continually falling and rot quickly to become nutrients for the tree. The two largest natural sources of CO2 are the oceans and the decomposing vegetation, the IPCC’s “dead organic matter.” There is a disturbing analogy to the IPCC process in this sequence. It produces the rotten data on which it perpetuates itself.

People of the tropical rainforests practice a unique agriculture that describes the process, “slash and burn.” They clear a small area and burn the material to provide enough minerals for a couple of years of cropping. They then abandon the area to allow regeneration on the small amount of organic material left behind. In the 20th century, three attempts to create large-scale agriculture in the tropical rainforests failed primarily because of ignoring the inexorable infertility of the soils.

The first was Henry Ford’s project to grow rubber trees in plantations in Brazil. It centered on a community called Fordlandia. The second failure was known as the Groundnut Scheme and involved a British government plan to ensure a supply of the most important agricultural product in the world, vegetable oil. Groundnut is the British name for peanut. Begun in 1950 in Tanganyika (Tanzania today), it lasted 10 short years, again primarily because of the soil situation. The third failure was the brainchild of American billionaire Daniel Ludwig. He believed the cold climate forests would not be able to meet the demand for paper from pulp, so he established a plantation of a rapid growing tree around a town called Jari, again in the Amazon basin.

Here is a quote from an article published in 2017 that breathlessly announces,

A study conducted by Brazilian and British researchers, published by Nature, showed that swamped areas in the Amazon rainforest produce between 15 and 20 million tons of methane every year – the equivalent of emissions by all oceans combined.

Did the IPCC extrapolate that data back to the 1750 level? Of course not! It, like the amount of CO2 from rotting vegetation under the Amazon rainforest, is just another vast unknown. The numbers used by the IPCC for CO2 from the oceans and rotting vegetation have an error factor that each alone exceeds the total human production. Despite that they claim that the annual increase in CO2 is, to use their terminology, very likely (90-100%) to account for the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1950. This fits the Mauna Loa trend very nicely, but the measurements and instrumentation used there are patented and controlled by the Keeling family, first the father and now the son. These readings are the source of atmospheric CO levels used by the IPCC. The father was a fervid believer in human CO2 causing of warming, and the son is a member of the IPCC. Further, in a perverted twist to ensure false data quality control, the IPCC generate their own estimates of the annual production of human CO2.

If the oceans are the major source and sink of atmospheric CO2, then why doesn’t the warming El Nino events show up in the Mauna Loa record. A 2015 story about El Nino states,

El Niño has its fingers in a lot of pies this year: Not only is it helping to boost 2015 toward the warmest year on record but it is also a major factor in blockbuster hurricane activity in the Pacific and is contributing to a major worldwide coral die-off.

None of this proved correct.

Reportedly, a strong El Nino occurred in 1998 that pushed global temperatures to a high within the instrumental record. Why doesn’t it show on the Mauna Loa record when the seasonal variation of the vegetative cover appears quite strongly? (Figure 3)

clip_image006

Figure 3.

Notice the source of this figure is the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. It is also the place of employment of Mauna Loa patent owner Ralph Keeling and the promoter of AGW alarmism Naomi Oreske (Figure 4). Where is the reflection of CO2 increase due to the dramatic ocean warming and temperature increase caused by El Nino?

clip_image008

Figure 4: Keeling, Oreske, and Talley Photographed at Scripps after notification of Nobel Prize.

The entire AGW hypothesis is the biggest deception in history. It is no surprise that it is built on the biggest deception about actual data. The open and blatant representation of all the data in the IPCC Reports as real data is beyond shameful.

It is appropriate that the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report includes an obituary to Stephen Schneider. He began and attempted to justify the idea that dishonesty was necessary to promote the false story about AGW in a 1989 quote.

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

The second last sentence is false, like the data used by the IPCC. What he really means is, if you study climate science you have to decide whether to be honest or dishonest. We know, from the unreal ‘data’ they present as real data, which one they chose.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
paqyfelyc

good job.

shrnfr

In a round about way.

Jamal,

The uncertainty of the natural CO2 flows is of zero interest if you look at the mass balance:

Increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural emissions – natural sinks.

4.5 GtC/yr = 9 GtC/yr + X – Y

X = Y – 4.5 GtC/yr

If:
X = 10 GtC/yr, Y = 14.5 GtC/yr
X = 100 GtC/yr, Y = 104.5 GtC/yr
X = 1000 GtC/yr, Y = 1004.5 GtC/yr

Thus even without knowing any individual CO2 flux in or out, all natural inputs together are smaller than all natural outputs together, every year in the past 60 years. Thus nature can’t be the cause of the CO2 increase, whatever the change in any or all natural CO2 fluxes…

Old England

You state:

“My research for central Canada, based on accurate maps, showed that the tree-line at the northern edge of the Boreal forest moved some 200 km between 1772 and 1972. This is a movement of 1 km per year in one of the harshest growing environments in the world.”

It begs the question of how much further north has this moved since 1972?

That would provide a useful comparison of the rate of any actual “climate change” compared to IPCC claims etc.

Felix

Please excuse my pedantry, but you mean “raises” the question, not “begs” it.

Begging the question is the name of a logical fallacy, which basically means assuming that which you intend to prove.

” but the measurements and instrumentation used there are patented and controlled by the Keeling family, first the father and now the son.”
Patents expire after a few years (In USA it is currently 20 years after date of filing)

HotScot

Jim

I’ll try this again as my earlier comment seems to have disappeared into the lost comments black hole. Forgive me if it pop’s back up again.

My understanding is patents can be renewed indefinitely.

Phil Rae

HotScot

US patents are valid for 17-20 years, depending on filing date and issue date. So the patent on the IR sensor for CO2 determination has presumably expired. If I remember rightly, Keeling began his work in ~1958.

BillP

The patent part is irrelevant, it is the control that matters.

Here is a lot of information on how the measurements are made: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

ATheoK

That is correct, for those who file for patents once.

Companies, businesses, individuals, etc., whose finances depend upon controlling use of their intellectual property have reasons to ply every trick necessary to keep their patents primary and controlled.

While, officially, patents are term limited, in practice, patent owners learn to manipulate the Patent Office and Patent Law.
At the root of this is the Patent Office bureaucracy where patents are processed by patent clerks. Patent clerks that are not experts in the technology area, but are experts in patent fields and patent process.

A bureaucracy that issues new patents for the same technology based on patent applications alleging new materials, new process changes, changes in design, even changes in usage.

This allows entities to maintain patent control for mechanical, drugs, plants, technical areas, etc. long after original patents expired. These same entities, often pursue aggressively alleged patent infringements

commieBob

My understanding is patents can be renewed indefinitely.

If you modify the original product, you can get a patent on the modification. Even that strategy isn’t guaranteed to work. Still, drug companies find ways to abuse the process. link

The spirit and intent of the law is that patents expire.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar

There are circumstances under which a patent can be extended – where it took time to bring the product to market. I know of one such case for interlocking pavers (bricks). Those zig-zag ones. They obtained an additional 3 years (total 23) on the basis they were unable to commercialise it for the first three. It was worth millions to have that protection because it was widely licensed.

Walter Sobchak

Patents may not be renewed. Where did you get the idea that is possible.

USPTO says: “First, whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain only ONE patent therefor.”

whiten

Walter Sobchak

Patents may not be renewed. Where did you get the idea that is possible.

USPTO says: “First, whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain obtain only ONE patent therefor.”
—————-

But in some special cases it could be possible, for some inventions to still be fully controlled even after the time of patent or outside the means of the patent protection.

For example when the invention technically is a novelty but a process that can be described mathematically, and being the main only way to make the invention productive is not legally protected by the patent itself, but later on can be protected by a copyright in a software that it could belong, and for as long that there is proper new software versions, new copyright can be invoked….so the control maintain and extended.

Not very sure but this may be the case here, I think…..like with the M. Windows OS.

cheers

As far as I know, Keeling didn’t have a patent on the NDIR method itself, as that was already on the market (*). What he did invent was the frequent automatic calibration technique to avoid the necessary sample fow conditioning for a simple, robust apparatus which could work for months without much maintenance.

In the first decades Scripps/Keeling was the only supplier of extremely accurate calibration mixtures for the above. Since 1995 it is the WMO. Keeling/Scripps is not involved anymore, but still has its own standards and sampling. Monitoring at Mauna Loa and several other stations is under supervision of NOAA, not Scripps/Keeling.

(*) From his autobiography (very interesting read!):
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/assets/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf

I had briefly investigated some commercially available instruments that could measure atmospheric CO2 continuously.

zazove

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the people who formulated the structure that directed their research, constantly manipulated the data and the methods to predetermine the results.”

Unsupported arm-waving bollocks. And downhill from there.

JBNL1972

Can you back up your assertion with data ?
If not, is that what they refer to as “pot kettle black” ?

You might want to remember a little situation called “ClimateGate” by the way …

Gerald Machnee

You can start with the deletion of the pre 1979 Arctic ice to show that it has been declining when the earlier IPCC report showed less ice in 1974.oin the discussion…

Indeed. This is from IPCC First Assessment Report, pp.224-225 (I added the red circles); data starts in 1973 (Nimbus 5):

http://sealevel.info/ipcc_far_pp224-225_sea_ice2_1979circled.png
comment image

Starting with the Third Assessment Report, the IPCC’s Reports start their sea ice graphs with 1979 (Nimbus 7). Problem solved.

Now, as it happens, the Nimbus 7 multi-channel passive microwave radiometer was superior to the Nimbus 5 single-channel instrument, so I assume if you asked the IPCC authors why they ceased showing pre-1979 data that’s what they would tell you. But it is awfully convenient for supporting the CAGW narrative.

HotScot

zazove

Usual refuge of the alarmist scoundrel.

No science, but plenty of bluster.

zazove

JBNL1972, impossible to refute arm-waving, nothing of substance to refute…that’s what makes it bollocks.

“No science, but plenty of bluster.”
Ball’s post? Oh, I know.

Newminster

We’ll take that as a “no”, then.

Wonderful thing about trolls — always demanding links, evidence, proof. Totally incapable of anything other than abuse when asked to justify their own “unsupported arm-waving bollocks”.

zazove

” always demanding links, evidence, proof” and when it turns out none exists they are branded a troll. The nerve of these demanding trolls.
Its Ball publicly spouting fabulous claims not me. I’m just calling bollocks when they are dangled in my face.

Newminster

Ball is clear — there is no evidence to support the 250+ years ago data they are claiming.

If you are so sure there is then provide your evidence. You can’t simply argue that claiming a lack of evidence for something is bollocks and not refute the claim with evidence of your own unless you want to be branded a troll.

Simple as that.

Chris

Nope. Ball made the accusation. It’s incumbent on him to back it up with evidence.

MarkMcD

Wait… How does one ‘back up’ a lack of evidence with evidence?

If you think it’s ‘bollocks’ all you would need to do is show some evidence.

Tom Halla

There is a minor little thing called “burden of proof”. and who it lies on. Try contemplating Popper.

MarkW

Translation: I can’t refute it, so I”ll just pretend I don’t have to.

mikebartnz

Pathetic little narcissist. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

JBNL1972

You are correct, it is impossible to refute arm-waving …. which nicely explains the longevity of the IPCC =)
Thank you for confirming this!

That’s the problem with science.. you can disprove something right there in front of someone’s face – falsify it utterly, but unless they comprehend the philosophy of science it means nothing and they revert to some other logic system that suits them

It can only get worse when the subject uses inductive logic mixed with science .. The IPCC claims to be scientific, just as economists claim to be scientific , and they mixed grains of science with heavy doses of politics and while the scientist may argue the facts, the opponent argues the politics.

The truth of it can be seen clearly by the person applying the philosophy of scientist, but the political animal uses their quite different logic system to justify their stance too. I picture a checkered board – two players, one with chess pieces, the other with checkers.. Both shouting at the other, both trying to convince – but the scientist is at a distinct disadvantage as the opponent is not bound by strict rules and can change them on the hop to suit themselves.

We’ll never get it through their heads, they’ll grab bits of ‘science’ and dash about like a terrier with a sock, yapping and growling and completely misunderstanding the point of it all is knowledge and NOT “winning”.

This can’t be resolved with science, all we can do is tackle each idiot action with as much evidence and energy as we can afford and hope to stave off some disaster as the mob dashes toward the cliff edge shouting ‘exciting!’ ‘fun!’ but ultimately they choose the course, we as the minority are just along for the ride.

People learn best from seeing ‘say it and I’ll hear it, show me and I’ll understand it’ – and science won’t do it for them. They’ll only get it when somewhere like South Australia to my East has it’s economy crash and burn or the grid collapses and thousands of former-first wolders die for no good bloody reason. Of course The Masses will need to see this happen a few times (good lord, look a the whole socialist experiment – Pol, Ad0lph, Uncle Joe, Meow.. yeah it’s always ‘they’re so cool’ at the getgo, ‘aw they were bad apples’ at the end) but eventually they’ll get it.

Ronald Braud

zazove: There are numerous posts from Dr. Ball concerning IPCC data and methods. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/ipcc-objectives-and-methods-mandated-elimination-reduction-manipulation-of-inadequate-real-data-and-creation-of-false-data/ with links to others therein.

zazove

You are referring to Ball’s opinions and theories about the cause of recent global warming? They’re unsubstaniated, unmitigated bollocks. Now I know why they call him Ball.

MarkMcD

^^ And here we see the AGW fascist propaganda tactics. Nothing to bite on, just personal attacks.

Not a single post outlining exactly where he thinks Ball is incorrect and providing evidence as to WHY he might be so. Just attack the person and hope nobody notices his blatant violation of normal rules of debate and science.

He’d have gotten a ‘fail’ in every debate I was ever in at high school.

MarkW

That the data has been manipulated is admitted to by those who did it.
They claim it’s justified, but for the most part they refuse to show how and why they did it.

On the other hand, the fact that you are either unaware of this basic fact or chose to pretend you aren’t, is just more evidence that you will say whatever it takes to protect your religion.

zazove

“they refuse to show how and why they did it.”

More unsubstaniated, unmitigated bollocks. Google it if you don’t know something.

ralfellis

>>Where is the reflection of CO2 increase due to the dramatic ocean
>>warming and temperature increase caused by El Nino?

Tim,

A good point. However, other CO2 records also show no modulation during el-nino events. This graph is from Australia, but CO2 ends up mixing worldwide after a year or so.

http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/CSIROCO2CAPEFERGUSON.JPG

.

So lets us assume for a minute that the Mauna Loa data is roughly reliable, how can the variable sea temperature NOT result in a variation on CO2 concentrations? The oceans are the major
resevoir for CO2, so a change in sea temperature should result in a change in CO2 concentrations.

Are the seas not absorbing and relasing as much CO2 as calculated? Are the seas respiring the other atmospheric gasses at the same rate as CO2 ? (instead of selectively absorbing CO2).

More importantly, how does the IPCC explain there being no atmospheric CO2 changes, during major sea temperature variations?

Ralph

HotScot

Ralf

Isn’t Mauna Loa an active volcano?

*[Mauna Loa] “is one of five volcanoes that form the Island of Hawaii in the U.S. state of Hawai’i in the Pacific Ocean. The largest subaerial volcano in both mass and volume, Mauna Loa has historically been considered the largest volcano on Earth, dwarfed only by Tamu Massif. It is an active shield volcano………”

Strange place to site a CO2 monitoring station.

*Reference from Wikipedia. I don’t usually rely on anything from there, but for a thumbnail sketch it’s sometimes useful.

ralfellis

Yes, Mauna Loa has volcanoes, but they reputedly only take measurements during anticyclonic weather systems, when the air mass is descending. Thus they should be monitoring the upper air-mass CO2 concentrations, and not the lower air mass concentrations.

R

paqyfelyc

“So lets us assume for a minute that the Mauna Loa data is roughly reliable, how can the variable sea temperature NOT result in a variation on CO2 concentrations? The oceans are the major resevoir for CO2, so a change in sea temperature should result in a change in CO2 concentrations. ”
Not that simple. An equatorial water already hot enough to be practically devoid of CO2 and absorb close to nil, won’t show any difference if it gets hotter because El Nino.

Tom Abbott

“Not that simple. An equatorial water already hot enough to be practically devoid of CO2 and absorb close to nil, won’t show any difference if it gets hotter because El Nino.”

Interesting. How warm does the ocean have to be to be devoid of CO2?

richard verney

When there is an El Nino, what we see is warmer SST (in the El Nino region), but that does not necessarily mean that the ocean is warm, in absolute terms (as opposed to being simply anomalously warmer than usual), and more significantly what volume of ocean is impacted.

Are we only talking about the top cm, 10 cm, 50 cm, 1 m, 2 m etc of the ocean being warmer than usual. The volume could be relatively small if only the top cms are affected, and hence it could be that there would not be that much more out gassing in El Nino conditions.

paqyfelyc

If the volume were small, it wouldn’t have the heat content to impact the whole world temperature as it does.

paqyfelyc

“How warm does the ocean have to be to be devoid of CO2?”
It will never be devoid of CO2; boiling water still has some CO2. However, to be practically devoid of CO2 as far as outgassing is concerned, 25° is enough. At this point, it already has outgassed ~90% of what it would outgas if heated to 35°. See ref below

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar

paqyfelyc

It is not correct to hold that warm ocean water is devoid of CO2. The rising water that feeds the El Nino is from below the surface (carrying a lot of upwelling fish food), and there it has a higher CO2 load than water near the surface. The temperature of the ocean at the surface does not ‘change’ during an El Nino save to cool down. It rises up warm – having been pulled from the Western Pacific. I recommend Tim Ball’s excellent graphics on these large scale flows around the Pacific.

When it rises it fizzes into the atmosphere, just as elsewhere. It stops fizzing when it reaches equilibrium with the air via well known mechanisms.

There is so much CO2 in the deep oceans that in places is it pooled into a liquid and has been photographed on the ocean floor.

paqyfelyc

You miss my point.
deep cold CO2-saturated water will lose ~half of its CO2 content when warming from 4° to 25°C at the surface. From this point on, its loss of CO2 because of lower solubility will be less and less noticeable. 5% of the original content for a warming from 25 to 30, and smaller and smaller decrease in CO2 content will happen as water warms more, until still 15% of original content are in the water when it starts boiling.
There is a big difference between cold water and “hot” water. There is no sensible difference between the CO2 content of the various flavour of “hot” water, whether it is 25° or 35° doesn’t really matter.
http://sites.chem.colostate.edu/diverdi/all_courses/CRC%20reference%20data/solubility%20of%20carbon%20dioxide%20in%20water.pdf

The relationship between temperature and CO2 outgassing is not that simple.

Alan Tomalty

Why is the Cape Ferguson CO2 data a chaotic graph when the Mauna Loa graph is a non chaotic graph. Both show a clear trend upward but the Mauna Loa data look contrived.

Javier

This fits the Mauna Loa trend very nicely, but the measurements and instrumentation used there are patented and controlled by the Keeling family, first the father and now the son. These readings are the source of atmospheric CO levels used by the IPCC. The father was a fervid believer in human CO2 causing of warming, and the son is a member of the IPCC.

So what. Atmospheric CO₂ measurements are confirmed at several places all over the world by different organizations, and you have produced no evidence that they are incorrect.

HotScot

Javier

I don’t think the inference is that the readings are wrong, I think Tim is suggesting there is a collusive relationship between the Keelings, people like Oreske, and the IPCC.

Javier

HotScot, the “but” in the first phrase indicates an objection to the atmospheric data based on who does the measurements, their supposed beliefs and their affiliation. That is not science, it is the type of thing alarmists engage on.

There are no serious scientific objections to atmospheric CO₂ measurements. It is one of the few things in climatology of which we can be quite certain, and it is thanks to Charles David Keeling. He did everything right to establish a measuring system so early that we can trust. He was a great scientist and very open-minded. His last works were on the effect of tides on climate change.

This type of smearing tactics of attacking the scientist instead of the hypotheses and the evidence is one of the things I hate most from the warmist movement, so I don’t like seeing the same tactics from Dr. Tim Ball.

Phil Rae

I full agree with you on that, Javier. The measurements and trends have been verified by too many people for them to be blatantly wrong regardless of the “exact” values provided by Scripps and Mauna Loa. I don’t think it’s in anyone’s interest to start casting aspersions about a conspiracy on the general trend and progression of the atmospheric CO2 value. That path is certainly NOT the path of science and serves only to undermine our position against those who cook the books for a living.

Edwin

I have an objection to CO2 measurements, not how it is measured on Mauna Loa or elsewhere but for the fact that CO2 has only been measured since 1953. That data is then compared to proxy data of the past as if somehow it has the same accuracy as the CO2 measured by instruments over the past 65 years. When the AGW crowd take their data comparisons back hundreds of years it becomes shear fantasy.

1. A nit: the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements began in March, 1958, not 1953.

2. The “proxy data” for CO2 are not garbage data like Mann’s silly tree ring proxies for temperature. They are actual CO2 measurements, made with modern methods, of air samples taken from air bubbles trapped in ice cores.

The main problem with them is that the process through which snow is compressed into ice on the ice sheets “smears” the air samples from multiple years. So, even though you might be able to date an ice layer to an exact year, you can’t say the same thing about the air bubbles trapped in it.

I’ve also seen concerns that biological activity from cold-tolerant microbes could affect CO2 levels in the air bubbles.

But, despite those limitations, general opinion, which I have no reason to doubt, is that the pre-1959 CO2 level data from ice cores is probably pretty good. It’s not as good as the 1958 & later Mauna Loa direct CO2 measurements, but it is certainly wrong to call it “shear fantasy.”

In my graphs I use a lighter color to distinguish the ice core data from Mauna Loa measurements:

https://sealevel.info/co2.html ⇦ interactive version, w/ references & data links
comment image

Clyde Spencer

HotScot,
If the CO2 measurements are correct, then the complaint about “a collusive relationship” is a non sequitur. That is, whatever the ideological position of Keeling et al., it is not affecting the measurements reported.

fonzie

(fwiw, keeling was a republican)…

Tom O

Nice attempt to divert the discussion from a post aimed at the IPCC to something else. I’ll give you a two thumbs parallel for it, but not up or down, just parallel. A good idea, just didn’t work out.

fonzie

fonzie

fonzie

“…CO2 measurements at other sites, with no possibility of contamination, corroborated that the rate of rise seen in the Mauna Loa record was global”

~ Charles Keeling

Frederic

Thank you Dr Ball. I always read carefully all your articles. You are my go-to source for learning about 1)the science of climate and 2)the politics of the climate-change-scam.

Richard S.J. Tol

This is all rather exaggerated. Tim’s main point appears to be that, since we do not know things precisely, we do not know anything at all. Few things in life are known with great precision and accuracy, particularly those things that matter.

Humans are pretty good at dealing with imperfect information. We would have long gone extinct if we were not.

Climate policy is just another case of decision making under uncertainty. We know how to do that.

Philip Mulholland

“decision making under uncertainty. We know how to do that.”

Yup, toss a coin, preferably a double headed one with Heads I win and Tails you loose thrown in for absolute certainty of outcome.

paqyfelyc

Track record of humanity decision making isn’t that good. It is rather awful, actually, and only severe Darwinian pressure put humanity in a more sensible path, but this takes decades to centuries.

James Beaver

People that have “Skin in the Game”, i.e. some personal risk associated with the decisions, get immediate feedback when they are wrong. A financial trader risking their own money will find out quickly if they make a bad investment. A plumber that can’t fix a leak looses customers and goes out of business. However, an academic or a researcher that gets paid regardless of results doesn’t receive feedback that their ideas are bovine excrement, so they don’t learn. Dr. Nassim Taleb’s book “Skin in the Game” goes into this in some depth, with examples from financial markets, foreign policy, medicine, etc., etc..

Clyde Spencer

Clearly, humans make mistakes individually and collectively. However, that fact that we are still around would suggest that we either make fewer fatal mistakes than correct decisions, or that we have a tendency to make conservative decisions that have more survival value than the alternative. That is, a concern about rustling in the grass being a predator, might well lead to death if it is dismissed as being the wind when it actually is a predator. On the other hand, assuming that it is a predator, and taking appropriate actions, will probably result in one living another day, regardless of whether it was the wind or a predator.

Ian W

Humans are pretty good at dealing with imperfect information – computers however are not especially when humans have programmed the computers to carry out vast recursive processes that iterate their way into the far future. Just ordering a calculation the incorrect way will end in wildly incorrect figures, moving from floats to fixed point similarly (as Lorentz showed) gives wildly differing results, inputting finger in the air guesses potentially orders of magnitude wrong into iterative climate models, is either foolish by someone not knowing what they are doing or deliberate in order to deceive.

I think Tim is saying that a major part of the shell game is to construct a roughly correct model of the current climate system, with various ingredients, then insinuate without proof that this model can predict with great precision what will happen when a few of the ingredients change.

LdB

Humans are terrible at dealing with things they don’t know precisely especially in science. Just walk back thru the literature and junk published about QM and GR until LIGO and the LHC slammed doors on some of the stupidity.

commieBob

Humans are pretty good at dealing with imperfect information. We would have long gone extinct if we were not.

Climate policy is just another case of decision making under uncertainty. We know how to do that.

1 – Societies rise and fall. People and countries make grave mistakes all the time and suffer accordingly.

2 – Experts are not to be trusted unless they are doing things that can be practiced and perfected. You can trust brain surgeons and engineers. Folks who purport to predict the outcome of chaotic systems are no more accurate than dart-throwing monkeys. Don’t believe that experts, especially economists, should be given the levers of power.

3 – Did you know that most published research findings are wrong? A large part of the time, the original researchers can’t even reproduce their own experimental results.

4 – Climate science is not just another case of decision making under uncertainty. Its apocalyptic predictions have consistently been wrong. It is a standout example of how research has been perverted. link It is corrupt.

ATheoK

“”Richard S.J. Tol
This is all rather exaggerated…

Climate policy is just another case of decision making under uncertainty. We know how to do that.”

Exaggerated?
Exactly which component did Dr. Ball exaggerate and by how much, exactly?

“Climate policy is just another case of decision making under uncertainty. We know how to do that”
That’s utter BS!

Yes, the world’s leadership is rife with leaders who make momentous decisions based upon ten seconds of information.
The world is also rife with examples where those decisions harm citizens, finances, employment, relations, etc. etc.
A major problem with leaders who decide issues based on ten seconds worth of information is that they, unfailingly, refuse to apologize and never reconsider their past erroneous decisions.

With very few exceptions, most situations require detailed accurate information along with clear understandings of a decision’s impact to all people and process!

Climate alarmism is proof of bad decisions that are based upon inadequate or just plain bad data.

Leo Smith

Climate alarmism is proof of bad decisions that are based upon inadequate or just plain bad data.

No, you are so wrong. That implies that the people involved think they are doing the right thing.

They don’t even care* if it’s the right thing. It makes them richer and more powerful.

That is all they care about.

Anthony: please fix this silly small italic bold font issue!

Richard S.J. Tol

When you decide to get married, have a child, accept a job offer, withdraw from the Iran deal, reduce the tax rate, or force the power grid to buy coal, you do not know (with any precision or accuracy) what the consequences of that decision will be. Yet, we make those decisions.

The notion that you need to know with a certain level of precision before you can make up your mind is just nonsense.

Similarly, we do not know with any precision or accuracy what the consequences will be of our choices about energy use. Yet, we can and must make a decision. A decision to leave things as they are is a decision too.

James Beaver

No, we don’t need to make a decision. Small individual choices are not the same as broad collective decision making. Central Planners are notoriously full of hubris. Let individuals make their own choices, thereby distributing the risk and maximizing the ability to adapt.

Clyde Spencer

It has been said “To not make a decision is to make a decision.” That is, the default of not making a decision is the status quo.

Leo Smith

1/. Making a decisions is not ‘making up your mind’

2/. The art of making decisions in states of deep ignorance is only taught in one place that I know – the military.
– make a plan
– define desired outcome
– reconnoiter the enemy
– revise the plan accordingly
– make a preliminary start
– if info wrong, retreat in good order, regroup and revise the plan.

NONE of this is what the climate alarmists are doing.

They are either incompetent or the desired outcome is in fact something other than the stated one.

Or both.

D. J. Hawkins

Dr. Tol, there is uncertainty, and then there is blind guessing. The IPCC is indulging in the later, and economists who think they can use IPCC “data” to guesstimate the supposed economic harm that will result from increased CO2 levels and increased temperatures are indulging in fantasy writing.

GREY LENSMAN

Dr. Tim. You forget that the Pre-colombian Amazon Indians farmed the Amazon very extensively and successfully.

ATheoK

Agreed, Grey.

Unfortunately, that understates the situation where the Pre-Columbian Amazon basin was host to a large human population.

Alleged virgin Amazon Jungle is not truly virgin, but regrown jungle after disease wiped out substantial portions of Amazon populations.

This does not change the Amazon’s nutrient poor soils situation, but it does change the gross assumptions and beliefs that once the Amazon jungle is cut, jungle regrowth is impossible.
A claim that ignores ruin after ruin discovered under massive jungle regrowth.

Mass modern era commercial farming ventures that failed in the Amazon represent bad decisions based on bad data and faulty understanding.

Red94ViperRT10

Didn’t you read it? He told you about slash-and-burn.

ralfellis

For a very good discussion about actual worldwide CO2 data from the OCO-2 satellite, I might suggest Euan Mearns 2015 discussion and CO2 maps.

http://euanmearns.com/co2-the-view-from-space-update

Scroll down to “Task 2” and look at the four world maps, giving the seasonal cycle of CO2 for 2014. These are interesting, for they back up some of what Tim is saying, and undermine the IPCC position (that man is a major source of CO2). Which may be why NASA refused to make these maps public, and they had to be produced privately.

Red is more CO2. Blue is less CO2.
The four world maps show:

1. NH autumn shows blue and green all over the planet, so CO2 is low in a NH autumn (just as the Mauna Loa data suggests). Note that there are no real red hotspots, matching the world’s industrial centers. There is a small smudge over China, and that is about it (but this is no bigger than the smudge over Iceland).

2. NH winter is beginning to show some red CO2 outgassing. But these red areas are coincident with NH forests, as much as urban centers. Look at the large red swathe over Africa, where there is no industry, and no power stations, and no gas and oil heaters keeping the people warm in the NH winter. This does appear to be biological CO2, rather than industrial. Note also that the southern seas are drawing in CO2. This is the opposite of what ‘should’ happen, as this is the southern summer, and the warmer seas there should be outgassing CO2 (according to the marine solubility argument). But they are not, the warm Southern seas appear to be absorbing CO2, possibly due to biological activity (algal growth, and other photosynthesisers).

3. The NH spring show a riot of CO2 outgassing, that matches the position of the boreal forests. This must be the warmer soils promoting bacterial decay in the soil, and outgassing CO2, while the trees and crops are not yet growing enough to counter this. Clearly this is organic CO2 production, and nothing to do with man. NH fuel consumption for heat, light and energy, peaks in the winter, not in the spring. Note that the southern seas are still drawing in CO2, instead of outgassing it, as the ‘should’.

4. The high NH summer. Now this is interesting. We have a massive draw-down of CO2 in the NH, as vegetation grows and absorbs CO2 (with CO2 being a primary plant food, and the most essential gas on the planet). However, note that the rapidly warming Arctic Sea is not really outgassing – at least not enough to overcome the huge NH biological CO2 sink. Note also that the major manufacturing centers of the world are still not producing any real CO2 hotspots. Perhaps a small blemish over California, with all their airconditioners going, and a smudge over China. … More importantly, note that the Southern seas are now outgassing CO2. This is the southern winter, when ice sheets are extending out from Antarctica, and doubling its size. And yet instead of the cold seas absorbing CO2, they are outgassing it.

.

The standard ocean-CO2 cycle appears to be somewhat in error (the Wiki version that is – I have not looked at any peer-review papers on this).

The ocean-atmosphere CO2 balance (the marine CO2 pump) is comprised of three elements: Solubility, Carbonate, and Biological. At a guess, it would appear that the biological pump is larger than the solubility pump, and that very cold waters are reducing biological activity and allowng decay and a release of CO2. I don’t know enough about the Antarctic biological cycle to know if that is even possible. Perhaps someone else might be able to give a more considered opinion.

Nevertheless, this does seem to suggest that the marine CO2 solubility pump is not as strong as advertised. Is this why the el-nino does not produce a significant effect on Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations? Is one of the major modolators of atmospheric CO2 rather ineffectual?

The OCO-2 data for the last 2016 el-nino would demonstrate what happened to CO2 concentrations above the Pacific during this great oceanic warming episode. But I cannot find any data or maps for these years.

Ralph

Tom Abbott

Excellent post, Ralph. Thank you.

I would like to see more discussion on this topic.

paqyfelyc

I don’t buy the solubility argument either, because obviously marine life mess a lot with CO2. The solubility-temperature relation only controls the absolute level of CO2, but not the flux. So, while a temperature increase will reduce the quantity of CO2, it could also drive or just coincide with an increased photosynthesis so that an intake of CO2 actually occurs, instead of the outgassing predicted by chemical balance argument.
Complicated matter here.

This is true, in a simple system where only the solvation reaction happens; such as: O2 (gas) -> O2 (aq). In a buffered system, this isn’t strictly true, as you state. In a buffered system, you have to consider the kinetics of all of the relevant chemical reactions that are occurring alongside solvation. In other words, the pure solvation Henry’s law relation must be modified; and the Henry’s law relation itself depends on the solvent and the soluent.

Clyde Spencer

Ralph, you commented, “Perhaps a small blemish over California, with all their airconditioners going.” Keep in mind that most of California is essentially a Mediterranean Climate, with really only two seasons.

Ralph,

Indeed, vegetation is the dominant factor in the seasonal exchanges, not the oceans.
Estimates of the exchanges in the IPCC graph are not based on wild guesses, but on measurements of O2 and δ13C over the seasons. O2 changes with the oceans are relative small from its solubity by temperature changes only, but large by plant growth (ocean + land) and decay. That, together with the δ13C changes (opposite for plants and oceans) allowed to calculate the overall seasonal exchanges: about 50 GtC/season between atmosphere and oceans and about 60 GtC/season between atmosphere and vegetation in opposite direction of the ocean exchanges. Net result: about 10 GtC (5 ppmv) global change over the seasons. NH vegetation dominant, SH in opposite direction.

See: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467

Besides the seasonal fluxes, one has a continuous CO2 exchange between upwelling zones at the equator and sink zones near the poles: that is estimated at about 40 GtC/yr, based on the “thinning” of the human low δ13C “fingerprint” and the rapid decline of the 14C levels after the nuclear tests of the 1950’s.

ivankinsman

Bollocks I am afraid. AGW is going to cause huge economic losses and this last chance saloon to reduce CO2 ppm and reduce global temperatures. Believe anything different and you should be a participant in the Mad Hatters Tea Party.

NorwegianSceptic

“BELIEF IN AGW is already causing huge economic losses”. There, fixed!

knr

Last chance! , oddly there has been a great number of those so perhaps a new name is required ? Perhaps ‘the end is nigh ‘ , but never saying why ‘nigh’ will be , a classic of the sandwich board religions types but no less scientifically accurate than most of climate ‘science ‘ and its ‘heads I win , tails you lose ‘ approach.

As impossible as it is to prove that we are causing warming, it’s beyond idiotic to claim that against thousands of years of evidence, warming is harmful. Not only is it patently false from a biological perspective, but historically, warming led to abundance of life, successful agriculture, civilization and increases in human population. Cooling, on the other hand, led to famines, diseases, wars, barbarism and population declines. In case after case, without exception. Any reason why things are different now, Mad Hatter?

John

Just how many of these mythical “tipping points” and “last chances” do we have to slog through again? I think we’ve long passed the Prince Charles “100 months” decree haven’t we?

Latitude

“to reduce CO2 ppm and reduce global temperatures”

You do realize when CO2 levels went from 300 to 400…temps should have increased by much more than 1 degree

And even at ~410 ppm, CO2, measured to the nearest one-tenth of one percent of the atmosphere, is zero.
Indeed, a trace gas.
And not a manifold threat – not a clear and present danger, if you will – to civilization and human life.

In contrast to the green-cased Reds, who seek to eliminate most of the present population – leaving no more than 750 million [present population 7,628,440,363 per http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/#top20 a few moments ago].
And most of the rest are to be peons or concubines.

A dimmish outlook for non-watermelons!

Auto

MarkW

Can you provide some evidence to support your belief that AGW is going to cause massive hardship?
The only evidence I have ever found is that more CO2 is an unmixed blessing.
Warmer temperatures means more crops can be grown.
More CO2 means that plants grow bigger and stronger and use less water.
What’s not to love.

BTW, Why didn’t the world die back when CO2 levels were above 5000ppm?

Robert W Turner

The internet has greatly expanded the number of dotards figuratively holding “The end is nigh” signs.

Clyde Spencer

ivankinsman,
Thank you for your opinion. Now, do you have anything to present to back up your opinion, or was it from divining tea leaves?

BillP

One of the inconvenient truths revealed by the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 is the high CO2 concentration in the Amazon Basin. https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/new-satellite-maps-carbon-dioxide-sources-and-sinks-high-definition

I suspect that methane is even worse.

Johanus

Be careful when you interpret the false color scheme used to depict CO2 concentrations in these OCO2 renderings. In these plots CO2 varies mostly by a few percent from 400ppm, maximum plus or minus 3.75%, but on average less than 1%. (See legend at bottom of each plot to interpret to colors in terms of ppm).

Compare CO2 to H20 vapor concentrations, which average around 5000ppm, but can vary from zero to 50000ppm, depending on altitude, temperature and the weather/climate.

So I would say CO2 is indeed ‘well-mixed’, compared to H2O (which has a bigger effect on climate than CO2, of course).

I think the vivid contrast of these CO2 plots are designed to accentuate small changes, creating an ‘unmixed’ illusion

Why inconvenient? CO2 is pretty well mixed, but not perfectly, hence the source regions will have a bit more concentration than the sinks, especially in regions with light winds.

bonbon

The quote is from 1975 `Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born
Margaret Mead president of the AAAS :
“What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane, pile up a larger store of nuts before a severe winter, or of caterpillars who respond to impending climatic changes by growing thicker coats.”
Schneider, Holdren,Woodwell were all there. Lovelock too, later pro-nuclear.
The high performance computing available today only accelerated the hockey-stick – their dream toolbox. High frequency trading, the City’s dream machine, is at the same time about to blow their financial system – another hockey stick already patched together in 2008.
Instead of the AGW theatrics – watch that financial implosion . It is really dangerous. It is no surprise the Italian Goverernment has Glass-Steagall bank seperation on its agenda and will very likely discuss it at the invitation from Trump to Conte soon at the WH.
To paraphrase Max Planck’s, there are fake problems and real ones – to distinguish them takes scientific creativity.

ATheoK

Bang on target, Dr. Ball!
Stated with far more accuracy than the vast majority of desk bound tissue paper estimates promulgated by climate charlatans!

Apologies for not having the time to comment on the whole article, but please allow me to point out some of the errors in the first paragraph alone.

1. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the people who formulated the structure that directed their research, … ”

The IPCC does not conduct research. It is an assessment body whose role is to assess knowledge relevant to understanding climate change. To be clear: We do do not carry out our own original research; we assess scientific research published by others relevant to climate change.

2. “It began with the definition of climate change given to them as Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). ”

The UNFCCC was established in 1992 when it was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit that year. The IPCC was created 30 years ago in 1988 – four years earlier. So it would not have been possible for the IPCC to be given a definition or target by the UNFCCC.

The report of the first session of the IPCC held in November 1988 noted that the objectives included:

“(i) Assessing the scientific information that is related to the various components of the climate change issue, such as emissions of major greenhouse gases and modifications of the Earth’s radiation balance resulting therefrom (…)”

and states that the tasks of the IPCC include:

“(i) Assessment of available scientific information on climate change; (…)”

No definition of climate change is provided.

The current Principles Governing IPCC Work, approved in 1998 and amended several times since then, state:

“(2). The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of huma-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. (…)”

Analysis of human-induced climate change requires, logically, consideration of both anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic factors in order to assess their relative contributions to climate change. This is what the IPCC does, for instance most recently in Figure SPM.3 (Contributions to observed surface temperature change over the period 1951-2010) in the Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report in Climate Change 2014 (the Fifth Assessment Report), which sets observed warming against greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings, natural forcings and natural internal variability.

Voltron

Very interesting to hear an opinion come from the horses mouth. Thank you for your input into the discussion, Jonathan. Very interesting to see someone such as yourself inhabit these parts of the internet. I’m assuming you’re the Jonathan Lynn media spokesperson for the IPCC? Enjoy the ride 🙂

J Murphy

Ha, good calls! It seems that this Ball fellow is continuing with his usual nonsense, as noted recently:

“… the article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views…”.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ron Skolrood

He could have been talking about this article, the last one here, or the next one! Why does WUWT provide this man with so many opportunities to make this site look foolish?

“Simply put…” the dear old Justice spoke out of his six o’clock orifice. There. We can all play.

zazove

“Foolish”?
Ball, despite being a nutter, raises it up.

mikebartnz

This site has been getting more and more pathetic trolls lately.

Tom Abbott

I put stock in Dr. Ball’s views. I don’t put much stock in the views of a Canadian judge.

If you want to rebut Dr. Ball, then try to do so. The opinion of a Canadian judge, of unknown bias, is not a sufficient rebuttal.

MarkW

Pretty typical. All that’s needed is for some spokesman to claim, you’re wrong, and all the usual trolls pop and start declaring refutation.

Completely and utterly false is the chart showing contributions to observed surface temperature change over the period 1951-2010.

I would say natural forcings and to a lesser extent natural internal variability account for 100% of the warming from 1951- 2010.

As I said AGW or I should say the slight global warming is ending this year.

This is the transitional year and I think the very low solar activity within the sub -solar activity we have had in general post 2005 will be sufficient enough to exert a climatic influence.

I maintain very low solar equates to lower global temperatures due to lower overall sea surface temperatures and a slight higher albedo, due to an increase in major explosive volcanic activity and an increase in global cloud/snow coverage.

Latitude

Love the way you put up a chart that claims knowledge we don’t have……..

MarkW

But, it’s in a chart, and the organization uses lots of letters in it’s acronym. How could it not be true?

MarkW

There’s a huge difference between “directing research” as the article mentions, and “doing research” as Jonathon mentions.

In other words, Jonathon is refuting a claim that was never made. Classic strawman, and something a paid professional should be able to avoid, unless he’s being paid to not avoid it.

Robert W Turner

Very cute how they claim that without humans there would be essentially no temperature change at all. That would be the first time in about 4.5 billion years, but hey, don’t think about it too hard.

Gerald Machnee

Yes, the IPCC assesses scientific papers, makes comments. Then those comments are ignored as a controlling group of less than 100, maybe 25, writes a Summary for Policy Makers. The we get a statement such as human influence is “very likely”, but with NO measurements to back it up.
It has been noted by Steve McIntyre that when he asked for more information from the authors of a paper he was reviewing, he was told by Susan Solomon not to ask again or he would be kicked off the review team. A great organization.

Jim

“The IPCC does not conduct research. It is an assessment body whose role is to assess knowledge relevant to understanding climate change. To be clear: We do do not carry out our own original research; we assess scientific research published by others relevant to climate change.”

In other words, it is a political body, not a scientific one.

“The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of huma-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

In other words, the assumption of human caused climate change is cooked into the objectives.

knr

The trouble with thinkong that you win by pointing out how the poor the facts supporting the other side are, is that your on the wrong battle field . The author is right that in this area ‘better than nothing ‘ is the reality . But they are missed placed to think pointing this out will be effective .

Shawn Marshall

Great takedown of the massive wag used by climate ‘science’. They throw man hole covers around like nickels.

Jim

Specifically, wooden nickels.

Peta of Newark

Moly Nola – why is carbonoxide measured and recorded there?
It is in the middle of a humongous ocean.
2 problems with that:
1. Why doesn’t all that water suck up the emissions, supposedly coming from exhausts, stacks, flues and fires many many 1000’s of miles away. How does all that CO2 get there when its supposed to be turning the water into a boiling vat of acid?
2. and the other side of the coin from (1) above. Is not warming water supposed to release carbonoxide. Maybe the notion is true, Maybe Henry was right with his law so is the rising CO2 level not a direct record of ocean heating?
OK, go with that. But where is the signal from silly old El Nono. There goes a huge belch of hot water now and again – so where is the resulting belch of carbonoxide? And the contrary when Old Nana belches?

We all know the answer to such awkwardness. Peta is just soooooooooo dense, thick and stupid that the only response is to tell Peta exactly as much and give Peta a thump IOW: Shut up and pay your taxes.
Peers, consensii and Magical Thinking are great aren’t they? School Playground Politics.

Why not hear about carbonoxide over the land area?
Peta will tell you why.
Because, at this time of year (summer) they will record over 620ppm CO2 in the hour before sunrise and less than 380ppm in the hour before sunset.
Where there is greenery growing. Different again where there is not.
Different when it is cloudy or sunny. All different again during winter time.

Lets hear it, The CO2 level (and water vupaur) will be very high on cloudy summer days yet the temperature will be low. So where is your GHGE?
Remember, clouds, water vpouar and CO2 all ‘trap heat’ or ‘reflect radiation’
So which is it? Two ENTIRELY different mechanisms. Cannot have both.
oops. Sorry. My bad.
In Climate Science you CAN have both

Ma Nature will totally trash their tedious little reckonings that go down to 3 or even 4 decimal places. (So the Metric System does have uses after all!!!!! ha ha)
But wait. We know from that appalling bit of graffiti above the door of Wyoming University that Ma Nature does NOT know best. Ma Nature must be controlled.
(MOTHER Nature – the female or womanly form. Geddit now boys – why so few babies and why you’re being divorced so often nowadays?)

Maybe Smith, Moan, Tubworth et al will have to do some Real Science, in the Real World and have an actual original thought in their heads.
Not inside their chauvinistic super computers. For those with a deficiency in a particular department, only a ‘super’ anything will suffice. The Human Animal cannot pass off untruth, It always gives itself away.

Just for once please. Original work and an original thought.
Is that really too much to ask

Peta,

1. Why doesn’t all that water suck up the emissions

The speed of uptake is fast for the upper ocean only (the “mixed layer”): within a few years in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Due to chemistry, only 10% of the change in the atmosphere shows up in the ocean surface layer. Exchanges with the deep oceans are much slower and for more permanent storage in forests even far more slower. That needs time (about 35 years half life time), therefore not all human emissions are absorbed in the same year as emitted.

2. Maybe Henry was right with his law so is the rising CO2 level not a direct record of ocean heating?

Henry gives a change of about 16 ppmv/K in the equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere. Even with 1 K warming ocean wide since the LIA, the increase in the atmosphere would be not more than 16 ppmv. The rest of the 110 ppmv increase is from human emissions…

Bellman

“If the oceans are the major source and sink of atmospheric CO2, then why doesn’t the warming El Nino events show up in the Mauna Loa record.”

They do. Looking at annual changes the two biggest increases in CO2 were in 2016 and 1998. You can see spikes in CO2 increase corresponding to a number of strong El Niños.

Chas

Is WUWT getting DDOS’ed this morning? The site is responding very slowly.

John Garrett

Ditto.

Tom Abbott

It’s slow this morning for me, too.

Fraizer

Speed is OK for me, but the page never completely loads in firefox. It keeps churning away at something, but functionality does not seem impared.

Gordon Jeffrey Giles

Once again, Thanks Dr. Tim Ball for your experienced and common sense explanations of FACTS. Something your contemporaries in the Climate Science (sic) should consider before blathering on any longer.

Dr. Ball exaggerates when he writes, “Their Figure 6-1, Fifth Assessment Report… none of it is based on actual measures, that is real data; everything is an estimate and can’t qualify even as an educated guess.”

In fact, we do have pretty good “real data” for production (and ∴ consumption) of various types of fossil fuels, and thus for the consequent emissions of CO2.

That’s how we know that negative feedbacks are lowering CO2 levels at about half the rate at which fossil fuel use etc. is increasing CO2 levels: because 1 ppmv CO2 has mass 8.053 Gt, and we’re producing about five times that much CO2 each year, i.e., enough CO2 to raise CO2 levels about twice as fast as they are actually rising.

That was the largest (though not the most obvious) of the blunders in Hansen et al 1988: failure to anticipate that negative feedbacks like greening would drastically decrease the effect of CO2 emissions, by reducing the increase in CO2 levels.

Phil.

That was the largest (though not the most obvious) of the blunders in Hansen et al 1988: failure to anticipate that negative feedbacks like greening would drastically decrease the effect of CO2 emissions, by reducing the increase in CO2 levels.

And yet his prediction of the CO2 levels continue to be extremely accurate!

His prediction for 2018 CO2 levels was:
Scenario A 410ppm, Scenario B 404ppm, Scenario C 368ppm
Clearly he anticipated extremely well!
2017-2018 Max 411ppm Min 403ppm

Tom Halla

Good commentary, Dr Ball.

Tom Dayton

CO2 is measured at many sites, at many altitudes, in addition to being measured from spacecraft. See the map for the Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. Tim Ball’s articles are getting wackier and wackier with insane conspiracies, fictional histories…

pat

J10 Jun: TimesOfIndia: Climate change? Freak snow in May, June dashes hopes of mountaineers in Garhwal
by TNN; with inputs by Gaurav Talwar
Uttarkashi: For those planning a trek or climb in the Garhwal Himalayas, a not-so-good news. Snowfall in the months of May and June — a possible fallout of changing climate patterns in the higher reaches of Garhwal — has restricted many mountaineering expeditions from successful summiting of peaks this year. As a result, organisers of mountaineering expeditions say, the current climbing season which began from April 15 has so far been ‘a dismal one.’ “Seven expeditions have gone to the Gangotri region to climb peaks in the area, but only two succeeded and five had to return because of adverse weather conditions,” said Jayendra Rana, president of Uttarkashi Trekking and Mountaineering Association. He added that usually, the area receives snowfall till March-end, after which the weather becomes conducive to climbing. But not this year…

Mountaineer Vishnu Semwal, a Mt Everest summiteer, said he found the weather pattern ‘puzzling.’ “Usually till May-June, fresh snow in the area tends to melt and only hard ice remains on the peaks, which is helpful to fix ropes and harnesses. However, during this season, most mountaineers are witnessing heavy snowfall in the peaks…

Manish Kumar, another mountaineer who was part of a recent expedition to Kedardom, added, “In the past five years, I haven’t witnessed snowfall in the month of May in this region. Our team had made preparations hoping for a moderate climate but had to face heavy snowfall due to which we had to retreat. It is an indicator that weather patterns are changing in the Himalayas.”…

***According to Dinesh Chandra Goswami, professor of Geography in Rishikesh PG College, the unusual snowfall during these months could be linked to climate change. “Earlier, our months were defined by the particular weather conditions that exist in that particular period of time. For example, snowfall in January-February, summers in May-June and rain in July-August. However this climatic cycle has changed in past few years due to factors like global warming, deforestation, excess human intervention etc. Besides this, many global and local factors have also shifted the climatic cycle, which may be causing snowfall in May-June.”
However, meteorologists hold another view…READ ON
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/climate-change-freak-snow-in-may-june-dashes-hopes-of-mountaineers-in-garhwal/articleshow/64533579.cms

Robert W Turner

Okay so major El Ninos have no impact on the reported aCO2 because…
Yeah, I won’t hold my breath

Robert,

Dr. Ball didn’t look at the details: if you look at the rate of change of the CO2 increase, there is a measurable impact of an El Niño and of volcanic eruptions like the Pinatubo. In El Niño years the CO2 levels increase with an extra 3 GtC/yr, while after the Pinatubo the increase was 3 GtC/yr less than in average years…

Jerry Henson

The carbon balance is unknown and unknowable. Dr. Gold was right.
Hydrocarbons are created deep in the earth and they rise all around
the earth, but they are not evenly distributed. They tend to rise along
fault lines which is the reason that the Arabian states’ fields are refilling
and the Saudis will not publish a number.

Grey Lensman @ 2:34 am gives the example that caused me to form
my hypothesis. “Upland topsoil, soil not in a flood plain, in the presence
of adequate moisture, owes it richness to the amount of natural gas
upwelling through it.”

Tera Preta, as the rich jungle soil is known, is soil over plumes of natural
gas. As the gas nears the surface, aerobic microbes consume the gas,
using the hydrogen for energy and excreting the carbon. The CO2 then
rises.

British television did a program on the soil patches and featured scientists
who leapt to the wrong conclusion. Dr. William (Bill) Woods was shown
near the end of the program watching locals mining the top 10″ inches
of the soil, and saying that in 20yrs, the 10″ inches would grow back.

The amount of carbon in the soil and the fact that human artifacts were
found throughout caused the geographers and paleontologists to conclude
that humans created the soil using biochar.

I knew that nothing that the inhabitants had done hundreds of years ago
could cause top soil to grow today. Too much energy is required.

I remembered that the black smokers discovered deep in the oceans were found
to be powered by natural gas. Then the small plume of natural gas stops,
the culture around it dies.

I devised a simple test for my hypothesis and tested soil on my
property in East Tennessee, soil in Middle Tennessee, and soil in
Northeast Kansas. The amount of hydrocarbons present in the sub
soil was proportional to the richness and thickness of the soil.
In ~500 ft. on my property, the topsoil varies from ~1″ to more
than 12″ and the hydrocarbon readings varied accordingly. The Kansas
sample required digging through more than 3′ of topsoil.

In the Ukraine, topsoil is reported to be more than 2 meters thick in spots,
and very rich.

Rice paddies give us a window into some of the problems estimating CO2
and natural gas volumes. When the paddies are not flooded, they produce
no natural gas. The hydrocarbons and the local microbial culture are in
balance. When flooded, the culture is disturbed, and the gas rises faster than
it can be consumed. This natural gas emission is said to be human production.

In past USEPA carbon balance accounting, upland topsoil in the US has been
said to be a 20-30TG sink for methane. It is not. The hydrocarbons found
in topsoil upwell from deep in the earth. When methane hits the
atmosphere, it rises.

The number and volume of volcanoes, of both hydrocarbon and CO2 production,
from surface and subsea locations is only guessed at. The amount of CO2
and hydrocarbons which never reach the surface is unknown.

Just the fact that the USEPA has claimed that topsoil is a net sink of CO2
means that the US balance is off considerably.

I hope that the Scott Pruitt EPA will correct this error.

Robert W Turner

Noop. Oil is generated from highly organic rock that becomes vitrinite and kerogen. This has been unequivocally proven, we literally produce it from the source rocks themselves. Minor amounts of methane and other light hydrocarbons are produced inorganically.

Jerry Henson

I understand that you believe that hydrocarbons are mostly fossils.
Do you think that hydrocarbons on Titan, Saturn, Jupiter, and all the
exo planets which have had their atmosphere analyzed show hydrocarbons
are signs of biologic life?

Shale hydrocarbons are an example of the way hydrocarbons which do
not reach the surface are captured. They rise until they hit a strata which
does not allow them to continue their rise. Small and simple molecules
require very tight rock layers to capture them.

Arabian light crude is an example of rising hydrocarbons captured by
very tight rock layers. You can filter out the sand and run a diesel with
it. The tar sands in Canada and Venezuela had no cap so all the light
molecules evaporated. Think of the earth as a massive petroleum distilling
vessel, with lighter fluid drawn off at the top and tar remaining at the
bottom. A combination of the pressure, metals, and straining layers,
mostly shale, but can be carbonatious, dictate the hydrocarbons retained.

The Russians have produced natural gas from a 40,000 ft deep well.
This was through (under) basement rock.

Methane hydrates are another good example. Fossil fuel believers think
that the hydrates are an ancient accumulation of life which fell from the
near surface. The plume of hydrocarbons flowing from Deep Water Horizon
demonstrates the fate of these molecules in the Ocean. When scientists
searched for them three month after the well was capped, they discovered
that microbes had bloomed to the extent of food available. The hydrocarbons
were gone.

The massive layer of hydrates off the coast of the Carolinas start ~500 ft
under the layer which appears to be the bottom of the ocean, and accurate
analysis indicate natural gas, not just methane. It is not fossil fuel.

Robert W Turner

Well said. The same exact thing can be said about their fictional heat budget cartoons that don’t even recognize potential energy or the fictional ocean heat content diagrams that show huge swings in heat in and out of the ocean without any effect on the atmosphere’s temperature.

The IPCC theme song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=451m6-oil94

Charles Hendrix

Re: The “Great Debate” featuring Mann in Charleston WV tomorrow.
Here’s the latest puff-piece from the very liberal Charleston Gazette.
They are declaring this is a conversation, not a debate.
And they are already pushing the false “97 pct of scientists” meme.

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/spilman-law-firm-to-host-climate-change-conversation-tuesday/article_21749d67-d316-5054-948a-008213ddfdeb.html

J Mac

IPCC – International Porcine Cash Consumers
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JxSLnvxP0w&w=560&h=315%5D

Sam C Cogar

Excerpted comment by Dr. Tim Ball:

Reportedly, a strong El Nino occurred in 1998 that pushed global temperatures to a high within the instrumental record. Why doesn’t it show on the Mauna Loa record when the seasonal variation of the vegetative cover appears quite strongly? (Figure 3)

First of all, the seasonal variation of the vegetative cover has nothing whatsoever to do with the yearly average increase …….or the biyearly (seasonal) cycling [increases/decreases] of atmospheric CO2 ppm as denoted on the Keeling Curve Graph.

And secondly, the resolution of the KC Graph is too small, …… thus one has to look at the actual Mauna Loa data to see the correlation between El Nino sea surface temperature increases …. and increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities, …… and here is factual data for your consideration, to wit:

Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 to May 2018
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
@ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May

year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 El Niño __ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03
2017 _ 5 _ 409.65 …. +1.95 __________ 9 … 403.38 (lowest CO2 ppm in 2017)
2018 _ 5 _ 412.45…. +2.80

The above data is proof-positive of an average 5 to 6 ppm decrease in CO2 that occurs between mid-May (5) and the end of September (9) of each calendar year …… and that there is an average 7 to 8 ppm increase in CO2 that occurs between the end of September (9) and mid-May (5) of the next calendar year.

Sam C Cogar wrote, “the seasonal variation of the vegetative cover has nothing whatsoever to do with… the biyearly (seasonal) cycling [increases/decreases] of atmospheric CO2…”

That’s a surprising claim. What is its basis?

Note that CO2 levels decline throughout the spring and summer (while days are longer than nights), as you would expect if seasonal variation in terrestrial vegetation were one of the causes.

Additionally, in the southern hemisphere, where the ratio of land to ocean is much lower, the seasonal variation in CO2 levels is also much smaller, again as you would expect if seasonal variation in terrestrial vegetation were one of the causes:
https://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Assessing-our-climate/Latest-greenhouse-gas-data

So, why do you think seasonal variation in terrestrial vegetation is not one of the causes of the seasonal variation in CO2 level?

Jim Ross

Dave,

I certainly do not want to put words into Sam’s mouth, but I think you may be misunderstanding him on this point. His numbers clearly demonstrate the link between ENSO and CO2 growth rates (incidentally, from a CO2 growth perspective, the El Niño in 1986/1988 appears to be rather important, even though it was not a “very strong” one). I think his key point is that the annual growth is distinct from the annual cycle. The relationship between ENSO and CO2 growth has been known for a very long time and should not be controversial. If I recall correctly, Sam is not a fan of δ13C data (sorry if this is wrong!), but in fact that is what proves that the annual variation, but not the longer term growth, reflects vegetation, exactly as he states and, in my view, this is dominated by the Boreal forests. If you wish to study this in more detail, you need to look at the Scripps data for multiple observatories and (something which seems to be little known here) the OCADS data:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/ocads/oceans/Moorings/Pacific.html

I cannot show any plots, yet, as mine are on a site that does not support https, but I shall try to update stuff as soon as I can. We cannot discuss this sensibly without sharing the actual data.

Sam C Cogar

So askith does: Dave Burton

So, why do you think seasonal variation in terrestrial vegetation is not one of the causes of the seasonal variation in CO2 level?

Dave, to answer your last question first, to wit:

It is not why I think it is true, ….. it is why I know it is a true scientific fact.

Shur nuff, Dave, what you stated here is true, to wit:

[Dave saidith:] “Note that CO2 levels decline throughout the spring and summer (while days are longer than nights),

“YUP”, they have been declining an average of 5-6 ppm during the spring and summer for the past 60 years as per the Mauna Loa Record. And that spring/summer decline was not caused by longer days and shorter nights.

[Dave saidith:] “ as you would expect if seasonal variation in terrestrial vegetation were one of the causes.

But, but, but, ….. spring/summer seasonal growth in/of “green growing” terrestrial biomass vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere is not, and I repeat, IS NOT, one of the causes of the bi-yearly spring/summer decrease in CO2 ppm. And that’s because green-growing biomass is dependent on warm temperatures (60F or above), moisture (liquid H20), Sunshine and CO2 which is ingassed via the stomata AFTER the plant foliage has developed. (Don’t get excited, reads on.)

And guess what, Dave B, microbial decomposition of dead biomass in the Northern Hemisphere is also, and I repeat, IS ALSO, dependent upon those same warm temperatures (60F or above) and moisture (liquid H20). And those microbes doing said “decomposing” are outgassing copious amounts of CO2, …. and they are “hard at work” doing their decomposing and CO2 outgassing, …. 24/7, rain, shine.

And because CO2 outgassing due to microbial decomposition of dead biomass starts 2 to 4 weeks earlier than the CO2 ingassing due green biomass growth, …… and said CO2 outgassing due to microbial decomposition continues 2 to 6 weeks after the green biomass growth ceases (stops), ….. then spring-summer outgassing of CO2 is surely equal to or greater than the ingassing of CO2. And don’t forget, green growing biomass also outgasses CO2 at nighttime.

[Dave saidith:]

Sam C Cogar wrote, “the seasonal variation of the vegetative cover has nothing whatsoever to do with… the biyearly (seasonal) cycling [increases/decreases] of atmospheric CO2…”

That’s a surprising claim. What is its basis?

Dave B, the claim that ….fall and wintertime microbial decomposition of dead biomass in the Northern Hemisphere is responsible for the fall and wintertime increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm, ……… is a biological impossibility, …… which is affirmed and attested to by the US Department of Agriculture (see below), as well as most every Department of Health on the face of the earth.

United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety

Refrigeration slows bacterial growth. They are in the soil, air, water, and the foods we eat. When they have nutrients (food), moisture, and favorable temperatures, they grow rapidly, ….. Bacteria grow most rapidly in the range of temperatures between 40 and 140 °F, the “Danger Zone,” …..

A refrigerator set at 40 °F or below will protect most foods.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/934c2c81-2a3d-4d59-b6ce-c238fdd45582/Refrigeration_and_Food_Safety.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

fonzie

(nice to see a carbon thread without ol’ you know who here to cotton bomb it)…

I’m unconvinced, Sam, and I am sure it is not “a biological impossibility.” Refrigeration only retards bacterial and yeast growth, it doesn’t stop it. You can ferment unpasteurized apple cider in a refrigerator, and milk will certainly spoil in a refrigerator.

Right now, I’ve got a whole lot of sequestered carbon that needs mowing, and a lot more is growing on the trees in my yard. At the end of the summer there will be a very large pile of that sequestered carbon, behind my house, among the trees. By springtime, that large pile will be a much smaller pile. In my experience, in my own NC yard, carbon sequestration clearly outpaces desequestration in the spring/summer, and the reverse is true in the fall/winter.

I do not dispute that bacteria grow faster in warmer weather. I suspect that termites do, too. But so do plants. What’s more, the relative lengths of days and nights probably has much more effect on photosynthetic plants than on anything else.

I suspect that my yard is not atypical, and that, in general, plants (sequestering CO2) outpace microbes and termites (desequestering CO2) in the spring/summer, and that the reverse is true in the fall/winter, in most places.

That’s just my intuition, but it is consistent with the CO2-level patterns in northern and southern hemispheres: the large seasonal cycle in the northern hemisphere (where there’s lots of land & terrestrial plants), and the much smaller seasonal cycle in the southern hemisphere (where there’s much less land, fewer terrestrial plants).

If you don’t believe it, then what is your explanation for the differing seasonal cycles in the two hemispheres?

Do you think that water temperature changes account for the seasonal cycles?

If the cause of the seasonal cycles were water temperature changes (warming water outgassing CO2, cooling water absorbing it), then why doesn’t the southern hemisphere have larger seasonal cycles than the northern hemisphere, instead of smaller seasonal cycles?

Jim Ross

Oops, mea culpa. My sincere apologies, Dave, I was the one who misunderstood. But that would explain why, if my memory is correct, Sam does not like the δ13C data!

Sam C Cogar

Jim, I’ll respond this time, to wit:

Jim Ross [responding to Dave B] – June 11, 2018 12:42 pm

I think his (Sam C’s) key point is that the annual growth is distinct from the annual cycle.

Absolutely correct, Jim Ross, the annual average increase of 1-2 ppm in atmospheric CO2, as per the Keeling Curve Graph and/or Mauna Loa data, is a direct result of the “warm-up” of the ocean surface water from the “cold” of the LIA.

“[Jim Ross] If I recall correctly, Sam is not a fan of δ13C data (sorry if this is wrong) …

“Wrong”, Jim Ross, I really don’t have a problem with said “δ13C data”, except for the fact it is “much ado about nothing of importance”.

The literal fact is, I have a serious problem with the “junk science” claims being touted by people such as Ferdinand E concerning the half-arsed guesstimated “quantity” measurements for the various “sources n’ sinks” of the δ13C isotope.

[Jim Ross] “ …. but in fact that is what (δ13C) proves that the annual (bi-yearly cycling) variation, but not the longer term growth,

Jim R, iffen you keep believing what FE tells you, ….. you will soon be taking things back …. that you didn’t take in the first place.

Those per se “experts” don’t have a “clue” what the total quantity of fossil fuels are that are “oxidized” each year, …… yet they don’t hesitate for “second” at telling everyone pretty much exactly what the effects/results are after said “oxidation” occurs.

Those per se “experts” are expert at “reverse calculating” to obtain their required “input data facts and figures” that prove whatever they wish to tout as factual science. Such makes for an easy n’ quick “pal review” of their work.

Sam C Cogar

Dave Burton – June 11, 2018 8:22 pm

I’m unconvinced, Sam, and I am sure it is not “a biological impossibility.” Refrigeration only retards bacterial and yeast growth, it doesn’t stop it.

Dave, iffen the plants and trees in the NH only “ingas” an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 to create “yearly” biomass growth, …. then how is it possible for only part of that newly created biomass growth to “outgas” an average 8 ppm of CO2 back into the atmospheric when it decomposes? …… Sucking up 6 ppm and coughing out 8 ppm …… sounds like magic to me.

[Dave B says:] “ Right now, I’ve got a whole lot of sequestered carbon that needs mowing, and a lot more is growing on the trees in my yard. At the end of the summer there will be a very large pile of that sequestered carbon, behind my house, among the trees. By springtime, that large pile will be a much smaller pile.

Shur nuff, …… Dave, ….. that large pile of dead biomass will ONLY be 30%-40% smaller come Springtime, with most all of that shrinkage due to “gravity” ….. and very little of it due to rotting or decay. But it sure as hell didn’t completely decompose and release all of its sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2, ….. now did it?

[Dave B says:] “ In my experience, in my own NC yard, carbon sequestration clearly outpaces desequestration in the spring/summer, and the reverse is true in the fall/winter.

Dave, how can you make such a silly claim when you just got thru telling me that the compost pile you created in the Fall ……. is still mostly all there on the ground among the trees in your yard when Springtime arrives.

[Dave B says:] “…. the large seasonal cycle in the northern hemisphere (where there’s lots of land & terrestrial plants), and the much smaller seasonal cycle in the southern hemisphere (where there’s much less land, fewer terrestrial plants).

If you don’t believe it, then what is your explanation for the differing seasonal cycles in the two hemispheres?

Dave, I can’t honestly answer your question unless you cite me specific examples (location, date and altitude) where your aforesaid “differing seasonal cycles” were recorded

[Dave B says:] “ If the cause of the seasonal cycles were water temperature changes (warming water outgassing CO2, cooling water absorbing it), then why doesn’t the southern hemisphere have larger seasonal cycles than the northern hemisphere, instead of smaller seasonal cycles?

Dave, what are those “seasonal cycles” you keep harping about? Ifffen you stick with the ML Record you won’t constantly be in a “state of confusion”. To wit: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

“DUH”, there is only one (1) “steady n’ consistent” seasonal cycle in the natural world, …… and it is the bi-yearly “changing of the equinoxes” that occurs on March 21st and September 21st of each calendar year. And the temperature of the ocean surface water is the “control knob” for atmospheric CO2 quantities ….. and with the greater surface area of ocean being in the Southern Hemisphere, then its ingassing/outgassing of CO2 determines the CO2 measurements being recorded atop Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, which is located in the Northern Hemisphere.

Dave and others,

I have had the same discussion with Samuel several times in the past to no avail. Just to make a few points:

– vegetation decay goes on within a heap of fallen leaves even when freezing and certainly under a snow deck even at -20 C outside temperature, as measured in Alaska from the CO2 releases through the snow.

– The opposite CO2 and δ13C levels show that vegetation is the main source of the variation, not the oceans. Here for Mauna Loa and Barrow:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg

As one can see, May has the highest CO2 levels and the lowest δ13C levels, from that month on plant growth overtakes plant decay up to August for Alaska or September for average the NH.

Sam C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – June 12, 2018 4:00 pm

and certainly under a snow deck even at -20 C outside temperature, as measured in Alaska from the CO2 releases through the snow.

BRAVO, BRAVO, ……. Ferdinand, …… via your above statement you have completely discredited all claims and research findings associated with …. “glacial ice cores and their entrapped atmospheric CO2 molecules”.

“DUH”, as per your above statement of fact, ….. iffen CO2 molecules can ESCAPE through the snow pack in Alaska, …… then CO2 molecules could sure as hell have ESCAPED through the yearly snowpack in Antarctica and Greenland where those “ice cores” were drilled.

Samuel,

Of course air and thus its CO2 content can pass fresh snow. That doesn’t change the CO2 level of the air, except if there are CO2 level changes in the free air above the snow. Then you will get a mix of old and new air with their different CO2 content. That goes on in the snow mass and deeper, but slower and slower until the pores of the snow – firn – ice are too small to allow further exchanges.

Therefore CO2 levels in ice cores are always a mixture of several years to several hundreds of years of air, including their CO2 levels.

Sam C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen doth attempts to CHA:

Of course air and thus its CO2 content can pass fresh snow. That doesn’t change the CO2 level of the air, …

Shur nuff, Ferdinand, that aforenoted parcel of air and its CO2 content can pass “thru” fresh snow without any change(s) in the CO2 level of said parcel of air, …… BUT ONLY iffen you have a vacuumized container atop that fresh snow to entrap that parcel of air.

Ferdinand, iffen that aforenoted parcel of air you spoke of, had both CO2 molecules and tinny weenie gremlins in it, would the number of gremlins under the snow remain the same ……. after those gremlins escaped through that layer of fresh snow?

That doesn’t change the CO2 level of the air except if there are CO2 level changes in the free air above the snow.

Well “DUH”, ,,,, Ferdinand, what are you telling us, ….. that CO2 level only change if or when there are changes made in/to the CO2 level. Brilliant, Ferdi, brilliant.

Ferdinand, I don’t know whether to “label” your above posting of June 13, 2018 5:40 am, as being the result of a delusional mindset, an intentional act of arrogance to foreshadow your ignorant comments or a simple case of intentional obfuscating.

Samuel,

You are mixing two totally different processes, only to obfuscate what happens in the really world.

1. Fresh snow is 80% air, and has lots of pores. No matter if that lays on a heap of fallen leaves in Alaska or on older snow in Antarctica.

2. Both in Alaska and Antarctica, there is a continuous exchange of air, including CO2 between the atmosphere and the pores in the snow and below in the case of Alaska. That process ends at about 70 m depth in Antarctica.

3. Fallen leaves under a snow deck in Alaska simply continue to decay, even when the outside temperature is -20 C. That is measured, as CO2 rich air from the heap reaches the atmosphere above the snow deck. That enriches the atmosphere with CO2 all winter long in the NH. From less cold countries, vegetation debris is continuously decaying, fastest in fall, less in winter and faster again in spring/summer.

4. There are no fallen leaves under the snow in Antactica where ice core samples are taken. Thus only exchanges with open air are going on until the air bubbles are completely isolated from the atmosphere.

Sam C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – June 13, 2018 12:06 pm

1. Fresh snow is 80% air, and has lots of pores.

Shur nuff, Ferdi, ……. and so is a fresh loaf of bread.

Is all fresh bread 80% air with lots of pores? ….. Hell no.

Is all fresh snow 80% air with lots of pores? ….. Hell no.

Ferdi, you really need to spend 1 or 2 years in Canada, Finland, Norway, Upstate New York or Switzerland before you attempt to impress me or anyone else with you knowledge of snowflakes, snow cover, snow accumulations, etc., etc.

And Ferdi, best you START your “snow education” by reading this, to wit:

Types of snow can be designated by the shape of its flakes, description of how it is falling, and by how it collects on the ground.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_snow

3. Fallen leaves under a snow deck in Alaska simply continue to decay, even when the outside temperature is -20 C.

Shur nuff, Ferdi, ……. and raw hamburger on the kitchen table in the Yukon simply continues to decay, even when the outside temperature is -40 C.

Tell us, Ferdinand, …. did all of those fallen leaves under that snow deck in Alaska completely rot away (decay) before the return of Springtime temperature of greater than 4.4 C?

From less cold countries, vegetation debris is continuously decaying, fastest in fall, …..

Try again, Ferdie, ….. the decaying of dead biomass is the SLOWEST in the fall (September and October), slower than it is in the wintertime. And that is because Sep/Oct are the driest months of the year in the NH. ….. And DRY food is PERSERVED food, …… it won’t rot or decay.

…. less in winter and faster again in spring/summer.

Right you are Ferdie, …… FASTEST in spring/summer when it is warm and wet.

Ferdinand, you really need to limit your “scientific discussions” to Kindergartner and First Graders because they would be mighty happy to learn that …… “4. There are no fallen leaves under the snow in Antactica[sic] …

Samuel,

As usual, it doesn’t make any sense to discuss this with you, as you don’t accept even what is really measured in Alaska and Antarctica.

In my country, there are mild winters with as maximum a few days to a few weeks day freezing and snow. In fall I make a heap of fallen leaves and after winter that is about half the height in fall. The rest I use(d) to add to the soil for new plantings,

I had somewhere a diagram of how CO2 releases from vegetation debris were over the months, but lost the reference. That was over the whole hemispheres, not only above the polar cycle…

About the exchanges within snow fallen in Antarctica, that is measured and modelled for the Law Dome ice core and other ice cores. See page 40 of:
http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/Glaciology/courses/ess431/LECTURES/2006/Lect_15_Ice_Cores_2_2006.pdf

Air is flowing freely through the first 15 meters of the snow deck in Antarctica. Down to 50 m, there still are -slower- exchanges by diffusion.

Sam C Cogar

In fall I make a heap of fallen leaves and after winter that is about half the height in fall.

Ferdinand, your above testimony that only half (50%) of the past growing season’s production of dead biomass decomposes during the fall and winter ……. absolutely, positively discredits your claim that the NH’s rotting biomass is responsible for the bi-yearly (wintertime) average 5-6 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2.

Ferdie, when the other 50% of your fallen leaves rotted during the spring-summer, what happened to the CO2 ……. which you haven’t accounted for?

Samuel,

Last response, because as usual, you don’t want to change your mind, whatever argument I do provide…

The total biomass that can decay over a full year can’t be much more than the total biomass that was made available from growth in last year + some of what was left from previous years.
According to the latest measurements, the whole biosphere is a net. small sink for CO2 of about 1 GtC/year in average, but wildly variable with temperature. That means that in total less biomass decays than is grown in the past year(s).

Even if only half of my pile of fallen leaves is gone in winter and the other half in spring/summer, the CO2 uptake by spring/summer leaf growth is about twice the leaf decay of last year in the same months, thus CO2 is dropping in these months…

Sam C Cogar

Last response, because …..

…… the CO2 uptake by spring/summer leaf growth is about twice (2x) the leaf decay of last year

You should run and hide, …. Ferdinand, ….. after posting such an asinine claim that you know was a falsehood created as a result of your deviousness, with said falsehood being substantiated by both the Mauna Loa Record and the corresponding Keeling Curve Graph.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar

I see there is 1700 petagrammes of carbon in the permafrost. That represents about 3400 petagrammes of biomass.

Question: How did it get there?

Answer: I think it grew there.

It was not deposited after being transported from hundreds of kilometers south of its present location by Neanderthals and Denisovans, large and powerful as they were.

Just why anyone thinks that permafrost is a good thing escapes me. That biomass didn’t draw CO2 from the atmosphere gently and constantly over 50 million years. Let’s see the carbon dating. Let’s see when it was completely unfrozen and supporting forests at that latitude.

Mairon62

The IPCC is in the business of selling a political con game to willing rent-seekers to solve a non-problem. What it basically boils down to is an epic consumer fraud pushed by people to lazy to solve real problems or get real jobs.

Just a note about abbreviations that might help others who share my ignorance of units of measure:

1 Pg = 10^15 grams, NOT 1015 grams as it appears in the article, which is probably a formatting error due to some restriction on how the article could be typed.

I had to look it up. I’m guessing that the IPCC used ppm of CO2 estimated prior to modern measuring methods to extract those gram figures from estimated ppm figures, relying on established writings on this subject by other authors.

Those Petagram numbers and arrows look pretty impressive and convincing, but I too wonder how trustworthy they are. I mean, I once did a pretty decent pencil drawing of a unicorn, but, as we all probably agree, unicorns do not exist.

And, yeah, there’s THIS:

https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/05/31/the-carbon-cycle-measurement-problem/

These results imply that the IPCC carbon cycle stochastic flow balance is not sensitive to the presence of the relatively low flows from human activity involving fossil fuel emissions and land use change. The large natural flows of the carbon cycle cannot be directly measured and they can only be indirectly inferred. These inferred values contain uncertainties much much larger than 2.3% of the mean. It is not possible to carry out a balance of the carbon cycle under these conditions. The balance presented by the IPCC by assuming certain flows to force an exact balance is justified by circular reasoning. Therefore, the IPCC carbon cycle balance does not contain useful information that may be used to ascertain the impact of fossil fuel emissions on the carbon cycle or on the climate system.

What Jamal forgot is that we have very good data of the yearly increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and reasonable good data of human CO2 emissions (maybe more underestimated than overestimated, due to human nature to avoid taces…).

Thus whatever the accuracy of any individual natural CO2 flux, its variability or even direction over the years, we have a good insight in the variability of the sum of all these natural in and out fluxes at the end of the year: -4.5 +/- 3 GtC/yr.

Human emissions are around 9 GtC/yr nowadays, thus larger than the net (negative!) result of all natural fluxes, including natural variability and measurement errors. In that way, the IPCC carbon cycle doesn’t need to give any useful information, as we know the net result of all carbon cycles together for every year in the past 60 years.

Barbara

And at UN Environment:

UNEP

Search Results: IPCC has ~ 77 items on IPCC.

It’s about how IPPC is being used?

https://www.unenvironment.org/search/node?keys=IPCC

Barbara

United Nations System

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

History and organizations included in UNEP.

https://www.unsceb.org/content/unep

Whole situation should be looked at and not just part of the present situation?

Barbara

UN Environment

UNEP

“Explore UN Environment Topics”

Select any topic.
https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics

Barbara

The United Nations System
2017 Structural Chart

UN Principal Organs

Note Chart References: Page bottom, right side of the Chart

http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/pdfs/UN%20System%20Chart_ENG_FINAL_MARCH13_2017.pdf

Jerry Henson

The carbon balance is unkown and unknowable. Dr. Gold was right.
Hydrocarbons are created deep in the earth and rise all around
the earth, but are not evenly distributed.They tend rise along
continedtal plate margins. This is the reason there is so much
oil in the Arabian states, and the reason the Saudis do not publish
estimates of the rate of refilling of their fields. Hydrocrbons
also rise where the shield is deep, as it is in the US midwest.

Grey Lensman @ 2:34 am. The very rich soil these farmers farmed
is called Tera Preta. The British made a program about this crediting
the farmers for the rich soil, instead of doing any real research
into topsoil. It is not Biochar, as stated by the researchers featured
in the program.

Near the end of the program, Dr. William (Bill) Wood is shown
observing locals mining the top 10″ of the Tera Preta, which
the owner of the property said would grow back 20 years.

I knew that nothing humans had done to the soil ~500 years
ago effected the growth of new topsoil. I remembered that black
smokers, deep in the ocean, had been found to be powered by natural
gas. When the flow stopped, the culture died. From this, I developed
my hypothesis.

Upland top soil, soil not in a flood plain, in the presence of
adequate moisture, owes it’s richness to the amount of natural gas,
up welling through it. Aerobic microbes consume the hydrocarbons
using the hydrogen for energy, and oxidizing the carbon. The CO2
rises and confuses the people accounting carbon in the atmosphere.

The USEPA has in the past, listed upland soil as a sink for
atmospheric methane, 20 to 30 Tg. per year. The EPA’s logic was
that the hydrocarbon in the topsoil is absorbed from the atmosphere.
It is not. When methane hits the atmosphere, it rises. I hope that
Scott Pruitt’s EPA corrects this error.

The studies of rice paddies gives us a window into the process.
When rice paddies are dry, the microbes in the soil are in balance
with the amount of upwelling hydrocarbons, so CO2 is emitted.
When paddies are flooded, the microbes cannot keep up with the flow
of hydrocarbons, and some reaches the atmosphere. Some attempts at
explanation include saying that rice emits methane.

Perusing my hypothesis, I tested the subsoil on my property in East
Tennessee. My topsoil varies from ~1″ to ~12″ within 500ft. In my tests
of subsoil in Middle Tennessee, topsoil about 16″ deep and in Northeast
Kansas I had to dig through more than 1 meter of topsoil. The deeper
the topsoil, the more hydrocarbons indicated by my test instrument.

Studies I have read indicate that topsoil in the Ukraine is as much as
2 meters thick-lots of natural gas.

The foregoing means that the carbon balance is unknown as is any
idea how fast upwelling hydrocarbons will be regenerated as pressure
above is relieved. Hydrocarbons are a constantly renewing energy
resource.

Clyde Spencer

“When you consider that the two supposedly most accurate estimates of world population (the US Census and the UN) differ by almost 6 million people (2011), you get a measure of the problem.”

(+/-3×10^6)/7×10^9 = +/-4×10^-4 = +/-0.04%

A precision of +/-0.04% is generally considered to be reasonably good. What other things in climatology do we know with such precision?

whiten

Oh, well….checked quickly the comment section, and can not believe that Nick Stokes not participating yet!

I thought he will be going all full BOM Karlization with this one… 🙂

cheers

Jerry Henson

The carbon balance is unkown and unknowable. Dr. Gold was right.
Hydrocarbons are created deep in the earth and rise all around
the earth, but are not evenly distributed.They tend rise along
continedtal plate margins. This is the reason there is so much
oil in the Arabian states, and the reason the Saudis do not publish
estimates of the rate of refilling of their fields. Hydrocrbons
also rise where the shield is deep, as it is in the US midwest.

Grey Lensman @ 2:34 am. The very rich soil these farmers farmed
is called Tera Preta. The British made a program about this crediting
the farmers for the rich soil, instead of doing any real research
into topsoil. It is not Biochar, as stated by the researchers featured
in the program.

Near the end of the program, Dr. William (Bill) Wood is shown
observing locals mining the top 10″ of the Tera Preta, which
the owner of the property said would grow back 20 years.

I knew that nothing humans had done to the soil ~500 years ago
effected the growth of new topsoil. I remembered that black
smokers, deep in the ocean, had been found to be powered by natural
gas. When the flow stopped, the culture died. From this, I developed
my hypothesis.

Upland top soil, soil not in a flood plain, in the presence of
adequate moisture, owes it’s richness to the amount of natural gas,
up welling through it. Aerobic microbes consume the hydrocarbons
using the hydrogen for energy, and oxidizing the carbon. The CO2
rises and confuses the people accounting carbon in the atmosphere.

The USEPA has in the past, listed upland soil as a sink for
atmospheric methane, 20 to 30 Tg. per year. The EPA’s logic was
that the hydrocarbon in the topsoil is absorbed from the atmosphere.
It is not. When methane hits the atmosphere, it rises. I hope that
Scott Pruitt’s EPA corrects this error.

The studies of rice paddies gives us a window into the process.
When rice paddies are dry, the microbes in the soil are in balance
with the amount of upwelling hydrocarbons, so CO2 is emitted.
When paddies are flooded, the microbes cannot keep up with the flow
of hydrocarbons, and some reaches the atmosphere. Some attempts at
explanation include saying that rice emits methane.

Perusing my hypothesis, I tested the subsoil on my property in East
Tennessee. My topsoil varies from ~1″ to ~12″ within 500ft. In my tests
of subsoil in Middle Tennessee, topsoil about 16″ deep and in Northeast
Kansas I had to dig through more than 1 meter of topsoil. The deeper
the topsoil, the more hydrocarbons indicated by my test instrument.

Studies I have read indicate that topsoil in the Ukraine is as much as
2 meters thick-lots of natural gas.

The foregoing means that the carbon balance is unknown as is any
idea how fast upwelling hydrocarbons will be regenerated as pressure
above is relieved. Hydrocarbons are a constantly renewing energy
resource.

Sam C Cogar

Jerry Henson – June 11, 2018 12:00 pm

Upland top soil, soil not in a flood plain, in the presence of
adequate moisture (H2O), owes it’s richness to the amount of natural gas (CH4), up welling through it. Aerobic microbes consume the hydrocarbons (CH4) using the hydrogen (H4) for energy, and oxidizing (O2) the carbon (C). The CO2 rises and confuses the people accounting carbon in the atmosphere.

The studies of rice paddies gives us a window into the process.
When rice paddies are dry, the microbes in the soil are in balance
with the amount of upwelling hydrocarbons (CH4), so CO2 is emitted.

When paddies are flooded, the microbes cannot keep up with the flow
of hydrocarbons (CH4), and some reaches the atmosphere. Some attempts at
explanation include saying that rice emits methane (CH4).

Jerry H, ….. rice paddies do for a fact, emit methane (CH4) and here is why, to wit:

Primary production control of methane emission from wetlands

Abstract

WETLANDS, both natural and agricultural, contribute an estimated 40 to 50% of the total methane emitted to the atmosphere each year. ………. [snip] ……………… Numerous biogeochemical factors are known to affect the activity of methanogenic bacteria and although there has been some success in relating water level and temperature to CH4 emissions within particular systems, these variables are …..

Read more @ https://www.nature.com/articles/364794a0

Amber

The fix was in at the IPPC from the beginning . No serious analysis of the benefits to a warming world
and no revisit of their conclusions despite initial climate models grossly overstating warming .

The question is who were the architects of this massive fraud ? Who gave the marching orders to
create the false narrative and promote it’s use to underpin the largest scam in history ?
Something this big needed a team of conmen and a plan .

Jerry Henson

Mods, what was wrong with my comment?

The global CO2 concentration depends on the tropical ocean temperature and the ENSO events can be noticed easily. The coefficeint of correlation is 0.8.

comment image

paqyfelyc

What would we do without you, good old jump from correlation to causation? So many comments would not even appear…

Nigel S

Heard this on the radio a while ago, it’s even made it into Wiki.

In 1954 General ‘Pug’ Ismay Churchill’s chief military assistant during WW2 related this anecdote to publisher Rupert Hart-Davis about Churchill rehearsing the speech he was to give in the House of Commons on 20 August 1940 after the Battle of Britain. When he came to the famous sentence, “Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so much to so few”, Ismay said “What about Jesus and his disciples?” “Good old Pug,” said Winston who immediately changed the wording to “Never in the field of human conflict …”.

jorgekafkazar

The estimated CO2 generated by volcanoes is off by an order of magnitude.

Jerry Henson

Mods, Please email me with advice on the problem with my comment.

“Never Has So Much Been Made Out of So Little by So Many at So Great A Cost”

I like it.

Any objections if I get some T Shirts printed?

Cheers

Roger

fonzie

comment image

Sam C Cogar

Here is the Annual Mean Growth (yearly increase) from 1979 to 2016, to wit:

Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 thru 2016
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
@ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May

year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + …… __________ 9 … 333.93
1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 __________ 9 … 338.32
1983 _ 5 _ 345.96 …. +1.29 El Niño __ 9 … 340.17
1984 _ 5 _ 347.55 …. +1.59 __________ 9 … 341.35
1985 _ 5 _ 348.92 …. +1.37 _________ 10 … 343.08
1986 _ 5 _ 350.53 …. +1.61 _________ 10 … 344.47
1987 _ 5 _ 352.14 …. +1.61 __________ 9 … 346.52
1988 _ 5 _ 354.18 …. +2.04 __________ 9 … 349.03
1989 _ 5 _ 355.89 …. +1.71 La Nina __ 9 … 350.02
1990 _ 5 _ 357.29 …. +1.40 __________ 9 … 351.28
1991 _ 5 _ 359.09 …. +1.80 __________ 9 … 352.30
1992 _ 5 _ 359.55 …. +0.46 Pinatubo _ 9 … 352.93
1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10
1994 _ 5 _ 361.68 …. +1.49 __________ 9 … 355.63
1995 _ 5 _ 363.77 …. +2.09 _________ 10 … 357.97
1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16
2002 _ 5 _ 375.65 …. +1.83 _________ 10 … 370.51
2003 _ 5 _ 378.50 …. +2.85 _________ 10 … 373.10
2004 _ 5 _ 380.63 …. +2.13 __________ 9 … 374.11
2005 _ 5 _ 382.47 …. +1.84 __________ 9 … 376.66
2006 _ 5 _ 384.98 …. +2.51 __________ 9 … 378.92
2007 _ 5 _ 386.58 …. +1.60 __________ 9 … 380.90
2008 _ 5 _ 388.50 …. +1.92 La Nina _ 10 … 382.99
2009 _ 5 _ 390.19 …. +1.65 _________ 10 … 384.39
2010 _ 5 _ 393.04 …. +2.85 El Niño __ 9 … 386.83
2011 _ 5 _ 394.21 …. +1.17 La Nina _ 10 … 388.96
2012 _ 5 _ 396.78 …. +2.58 _________ 10 … 391.01
2013 _ 5 _ 399.76 …. +2.98 __________ 9 … 393.51
2014 _ 5 _ 401.88 …. +2.12 __________ 9 … 395.35
2015 _ 5 _ 403.94 …. +2.06 __________ 9 … 397.63
2016 _ 5 _ 407.70 …. +3.76 El Niño __ 9 … 401.03

The above data is proof-positive of an average 5 to 6 ppm decrease in CO2 that occurs between mid-May (5) and the end of September (9) of each calendar year …… and that there is an average 7 to 8 ppm increase in CO2 that occurs between the end of September (9) and mid-May (5) of the next calendar year.

The “Max” CO2 occurred at mid-May (5) of each year … with the exception of three (3) outliers, one (1) being in June 79’ and the other two (2) being in April 99’ and 2000.

The “Min” CO2 occurred at the very end of September (9) of each year … with the exception of eleven (11) outliers, all of which occurred within the first 7 days of October.

Dreadnought

Tim Ball: Sticking it to The Man. Good work.

Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE

Earth’s carbon cycle contains 46,713 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 Gt (+/- 1.8%) of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred fluxes Gt/y (+/- ??) flowing among those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know? BTW fossil fuel between 1750 and 2011 represented 0.34% of the biospheric carbon cycle.

Nick,

It doensn’t matter how much carbon is stored in different reservoirs, as long as it isn’t exchanged with other reservoirs.
It doesn’t matter how much carbon is exchanged between different reservoirs, as long as the sum of all quantities exchanged over a year is zero.
It only matters what the balance is of all these movements at the end of the year.

The yearly balance is:
Increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural balance
4.5 +/- 3 GtC/yr = 9 – 4.5 +/- 3 GtC/yr

Nature nowadays is a net but variable sink for CO2, where it sinks about half human emissions with a temperature induced natural variability less than human emissions. Thus indeed nature can’t be the cause of the CO2 increase, it is an increasing sink for CO2…

A little late on the discussion, but this is one of the worst articles written by Dr. Ball I have read in years.

First let us start with where I take a huge exception:

This fits the Mauna Loa trend very nicely, but the measurements and instrumentation used there are patented and controlled by the Keeling family, first the father and now the son.

While C.D. Keeling was the first to measure CO2 with an IR beam (NDIR), and smart enough to make himself an extremely accurate (gravimetric) device to calibrate any CO2 measuring device with extreme accurate calibration mixtures.
The Scripps institute where Keeling worked later provided all calibration mixtures for all devices worldwide. Since 1995, calibration and intercalibration of CO2 mixtures and measurements worldwide are done by the central lab of the WMO.
Ralph Keeling works at Scripps and has no infuence at all at the calibration work of the WMO, neither on the measurements at Mauna Loa, which are done by NOAA under Pieter Tans.

As Scripps lost its control position, they still take their own (flask) samples at Mauna Loa and still have their own calibration mixtures, independent of NOAA. Both Scripps and NOAA measurements are within +/- 0.2 ppmv for the same moment of sampling. If NOAA should manipulate the data, I am pretty sure Scripps/Keeling would get them…

Beyond that, there are about 70 “background” stations, managed by different organisations of different countries, measuring CO2 on as far as possible uncontaminated places, from the South Pole to near the North Pole (Barrow), which all show, besides seasonal changes, which are more explicit in the NH, the same trend: up at about half the rate of the yearly human injection and a lag of the SH, which points to the main source of the increase in the NH, where 90% of human emissions occurs.

Thus Dr. Ball, if you want to accuse somebody of manipulation, first have your facts right.

Then:
Where is the reflection of CO2 increase due to the dramatic ocean warming and temperature increase caused by El Nino?

There is, if you look at the yearly rate of increase at Mauna Loa:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em6.jpg

The 1998 and 2015 El Niño’s give a clear increase in yearly CO2 increase in the atmosphere. The 1992 Pinatubo explosion shows a huge dip in CO2 increase.

The reason, in part the ocean temperature in the tropics, but the dominant factor is (tropical) vegetation due to (too) high temperatures and drying out of the Amazon as the rain patterns change with an El Niño and increased photosynthesis after the Pinatubo injection of light scattering aerosols into the stratosphere:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg

It is pretty clear that changes in temperature rate of change lead changes in CO2 rate of change with about 6 months. The interesting point is that the δ13C (that is the ratio between 13CO2 and 12CO2) rate of change changes in opposite direction. That is the case if the increase/decrease in CO2 rate of change is caused by decaying/growing vegetation. If the CO2 rate of change was caused by warming/cooling oceans, then the CO2 and δ13C rate of change changes would parallel each other.
Thus the main influence of (ocean) temperature (in the tropics) on the CO2 increase rate is by reduced CO2 uptake by the (Amazon) forest, not from warming oceans.

Again Dr. Ball, a little more research would have shown that you were wrong in your accusation.

It is getting late here, more comment tomorrow…

Jim Ross

Ferdinand,

Good to hear from you again, I hope you are well. Thank you for correcting many of the misunderstandings and errors on this thread. However, as you know, I do not agree with your δ13C interpretation of this plot:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg

I believe that you are confusing rate of change with direction of change. We know that if the δ13C of the atmosphere is, say, -8 per mil and we add CO2 with a δ13C of, say, -26 per mil, the δ13C of the atmospheric CO2 will be reduced. It matters not how fast we do this; if the incremental CO2 has a lower δ13C than the atmospheric CO2, it will reduce the atmospheric δ13C. Similarly, if we remove CO2 from the atmosphere then the opposite occurs (assuming that the CO2 that has been removed has a lower δ13C than the atmosphere). This is exactly what we see each year as we go through the annual cycle, which reflects the direction of change in CO2 (increasing or decreasing CO2 level) rather than rate of change.

If, instead of plotting the derivative values, you plot the 12 month average values of atmospheric CO2 and its δ13C content, you will see that around 1999 the δ13C of the atmospheric CO2 actually increases while the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is also increasing, albeit at a lower rate due to La Niña. There is no net reduction in atmospheric CO2 so this is not equivalent to the May-September phase of the annual cycle.

The rate of change of δ13C primarily reflects changes in the δ13C content of the incremental CO2 above and below the long term average of -13 per mil.

Jim,

Thanks, had a few (minor) repairs in the past months, but again going strong (for my age…).

The problem with using straight data and worse 12 month moving averages is that the bulk of the CO2 and δ13C changes is from human emissions with low δ13C. If you use monthly data one can see the seasonal swings which too are (very) large, but fortunately opposite for ocean and vegetation releases/uptake, still globally + and – 5 ppmv around the trend and an opposite change in δ13C over the seasons. That proves that (NH) vegetation wins the contest of the seasonal changes, not the oceans:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg

If you want to see the much smaller changes due to natural fluctuations, mainly caused by temperature fluctuations, one need to remove both the trend caused by human emissions and the seasonal swings, as the natural fluctuations are not more than +/- 1.5 ppmv on a trend of 80 ppmv over the past 60 years. Here enlarged for the Pinatubo – 1998 El Niño period:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/wft_trends_rss_1985-2000.jpg

The advantage of taking the derivatives is that the small but fast changes are highlighted, while the huge but slower trends largely are removed. The general shape for a more or less sinusoid remains about the same, only shifted back som 90 degrees. The disadvantage is that you have to be careful in interpretation of what happens in the real data…

In this case it is clear that the fast, small changes in CO2 rate of change are caused by fast changes in temperature with a lag of ~6 months and that the CO2 changes are mainly caused by vegetation. On the long term trend, the net result of the fast temperature changes is near zero, even negative as higher temperatures and more CO2 over longer term increase the net uptake by vegetation.

The 1999 La Niña indeed shows a lot of extra CO2 uptake after the slowdown during the 1998 El Niño. That is by the recovery of mainly the Amazon forest. As CO2 uptake uses more 12CO2, that even outperformed the δ13C drop by human emissions…

Jim Ross

Ferdinand,

Thanks for your response. I am glad to hear that you are doing OK (for your age!) – I think that it is a problem for many of us here.

I think your key point is in your final paragraph and I shall look at this more closely when I have time- I am away for a few days, so it may be into the middle of next week before I respond.

Sam C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – June 14, 2018 10:31 am

The 1999 La Niña indeed shows a lot of extra CO2 uptake after the slowdown during the 1998 El Niño. That is by the recovery of mainly the Amazon forest.

Ferdinand, what the ell does the Amazon forest have to do with the abnormally cool ocean water (La Nina) in the equatorial Pacific not outgassing as much CO2 like warmer waters would do?

Ferdi, how bout the 2000 La Nina, ……according to your claim, it shows TWICE (2 times) as much “extra CO2 uptake” as the 1999 La Nina. Was the Amazon forest doing a “double” recovery in 2000?

1996 _ 5 _ 365.16 …. +1.39 _________ 10 … 359.54
1997 _ 5 _ 366.69 …. +1.53 __________ 9 … 360.31
1998 _ 5 _ 369.49 …. +2.80 El Niño __ 9 … 364.01
1999 _ 4 _ 370.96 …. +1.47 La Nina ___ 9 … 364.94
2000 _ 4 _ 371.82 …. +0.86 La Nina ___ 9 … 366.91
2001 _ 5 _ 373.82 …. +2.00 __________ 9 … 368.16

El Nino -appearance of unusually warm, nutrient-poor water
La Nina – cooling of the water in the equatorial Pacific

Samuel,

The 1999 La Niña didn’t end in 1999, 2000 was just part of it…

During an El Niño, a large part of the Amazon is getting dryer as rain patterns move elsewhere. That makes that less CO2 is taken away by the rainforest, while the “normal” CO2 quantities are released from decaying debris.
During a La Niña, the Amazon forest recovers from that by growing faster. That was followed by satellites in the Amazon bassin. Here a link for the 1998 El Niño:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/1999GL011113
Here for the recent one:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33130

Sam C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – June 15, 2018 12:41 pm

During an El Niño, a large part of the Amazon is getting dryer as rain patterns move elsewhere. That makes that less CO2 is taken away by the rainforest, while the “normal” CO2 quantities are released from decaying debris.

Ferdinand, ……. don’t be talking “trash” to me.

Iffen the Amazon rainforest is(was) getting dryer ….. then the “normal” CO2 quantities would not have been released from decaying debris ….. simply because the aforesaid “dry conditions” severely hampers or retards the microbial decay of dead biomass.

Get learned, Ferdinand, …… dry conditions prevent decay of biomass. To wit:

Pemmican, which was invented by the native peoples of North America, …. can be packed into rawhide bags or other containers for storage and then it can be stored for a maximum of 10 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican

Iffen you get hungry, just put 2 or 3 tablespoons of pemmican in a cup of hot water, drink it down, and you are good to go.

Samuel,

You can’t compare pemmican with the debris at the bottom of a rain forest… Totally different materials to dry out and besides that: forest fires which release a lot of CO2 too…

Sam C Cogar

and besides that: forest fires which release a lot of CO2 too…

Shur nuff, Ferdinand, ……. and all those zillions of animals a huffing n’ a puffing n’ a breathing fast n’ furiously as they try to escape those raging forest fires …… exhale far more CO2 than those fires release.

Ferdinand, …. like Einstein supposedly said, …… it only takes one (1) item of actual, factual evidence to prove your touted scientific claims wrong, …… and I have already given you 7 or 8 said proofs that you simply refused to acknowledge …… and usually responded with childish “tripe n’ piffle” comments, …… like above with your “forest fires” CYA.

Sam C Cogar

Ferdinand Engelbeen – June 12, 2018 3:13 pm

The interesting point is that the δ13C (that is the ratio between 13CO2 and 12CO2) rate of change changes in opposite direction. That is the case if the increase/decrease in CO2 rate of change is caused by decaying/growing vegetation. If the CO2 rate of change was caused by warming/cooling oceans, then the CO2 and δ13C rate of change changes would parallel each other.

Ferdinand, you are still touting your “junk science” because you have furthered you career by doing so and/or you really don’t know any better and you have no interest in rectifying your problem.

Ferdinand, …. the bi-yearly change in the ratio between atmospheric 13CO2 and 12CO2 is a seasonal thingy, exactly as I have been telling you ……. and which explicitly defined in the following abstract, to wit:

Seasonal shifts between autochthonous and allochthonous carbon contributions to
zooplankton diets in a subarctic lake

Abstract

We addressed the extent to which autochthonous and allochthonous carbon sources contribute to zooplankton diet throughout the year in oligotrophic subarctic Lake Saanaja¨ rvi. Optical measures of dissolved organic matter (DOM) indicated high water discharge and associated terrestrial DOM during winter and low inputs in summer. Bulk particulate organic matter (POM) showed d13C values consistent with allochthonous inputs of DOM. The most positive POM d13C values (-27%) occurred during winter, when heterotrophic bacteria and nanoflagellates peaked in abundance; the isotopically lighter autotrophic phytoplankton shifted the POM d13C to -29% in summer. The d13C values of zooplankton were up to 4% more negative than those of POM, most likely because detritus and other nonliving material with higher d13C values comprised 45–90% of POM. The d13C of the cladoceran Daphnia umbra mirrored the trend of POM d13C, indicating a dietary shift from heavy dependence on autochthonous carbon in summer to allochthonous or heterotrophic food in winter.

(Note: Carbon sources from within the system, such as algae and the microbial breakdown of aquatic particulate organic carbon, are autochthonous.)

Phytoplankton-derived carbon and lipids are known to be essential for the somatic growth and reproduction of zooplankton and fish
Read more @ https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.4319/lo.2011.56.4.1513

Samuel,

Different plants show different selectivity in 12CO2 vs. 13CO2 uptake. C3 cycle plants are far more selective than C4 or CAM plants. In all cases, CO2 uptake by all plants in the world removes relative more 12CO2 than 13CO2. The net change in ratio inside the plant is between -14 per mil to -40 per mil and beyond, while the atmosphere was -6.4 per mil pre-industrial and dropping fast to currently below -8 per mil δ13C. The opposite happens when plant rests decay and 12CO2-rich / 13CO2-poor CO2 is released.

The net result is that if CO2 drops in the atmosphere, 13CO2 goes up and reverse, if vegetation is involved in the CO2 movements.

On the other side, oceans have a δ13C level of zero (deep oceans) to +5 per mil. Even taking into account that there is a shift in δ13C when CO2 is released from or absorbed by the sea surface, that gives an increase in δ13C in the atmosphere when CO2 is released from the oceans and a decrease in δ13C when CO2 is absorbed by the oceans.

Thus if you see opposite movements of CO2 and δ13C, then always plants (or fossil plants like coal) are dominant. If you see parallel movements of CO2 and δ13C, the oceans are the dominant driver…

Sam C Cogar

Ferdie, read this again, to wit:

“The most positive POM d13C values (-27%) occurred during winter, when heterotrophic bacteria and nanoflagellates peaked in abundance; the isotopically lighter autotrophic phytoplankton shifted the POM d13C to -29% in summer. “

Samuel,

The point is not the difference between -27 per mil and -29 per mil δ13C, the point is that both decrease the δ13C in the atmosphere which is just below -8 per mil nowadays when releasing CO2 at the moment they decay and increase δ13C in the atmosphere when absorbing CO2 when they grow. For both types of POM that gives opposite CO2 and δ13C changes.

What is measured is that for each hemisphere CO2 decreases from May on to August-September, thus plant uptake is larger than plant decay. In the other months, the opposite happenes. In all cases CO2 changes and δ13C changes go opposite of each other. Thus no matter the types of (land or sea) plants involved, fall-winter-spring increase and spring-summer-fall decrease of CO2 levels is caused by vegetation, not the oceans.

Sam C Cogar

June 16, 2018 1:26 pm

What is measured is that for each hemisphere CO2 decreases from May on to August-September, thus plant uptake is larger than plant decay. In the other months, the opposite happenes.

Ferdinand, …… you are intentionally stuck on a “learning disabled mindset” because the Northern Hemisphere’s “woody” trees, shrubs and vines biomass cannot possibly be emitting more CO2 back into the atmospheric each and every fall-wintertime than it absorbs each and every spring-summer, …….. especially given the fact that the trees, shrubs and vines are sequestering 50% to 60+% of that absorbed CO2 in increased body mass, or “new growth” ….. of their root system, ….. their trunk & limb diameter, ….. their trunk & limb length …… and hundreds of new limbs/branches. The remaining 40-% of absorbed CO2 is used to complete the leaf or canopy growth.

NOTE: most every bit of the “new growth” of “limbs & leaves” in early springtime is the result of the past-summertime’s “absorption of atmospheric CO2” that was stored in the root system as “sugars”.

Ferdinand, …… iffen the leaves is the only dead biomass that decomposes, …. then only 40+-% of the absorbed CO2 is emitted back into the atmosphere …… and the remaining 60+-% of the absorbed CO2 is still sequestered in the living biomass.

Thus, Ferdinand, you can continue childishly touting your forest fires, your flooding, your drouths, your Flying Spaghetti Monsters, your δ13C disappearing act and/or your snow decks in Alaska …… but none of them discredits the above stated scientific facts about the natural world that you live in/on.

The IPCC carbon cycle flow balance is a product of circular reasoning. Here is the proof of that.
https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/05/31/the-carbon-cycle-measurement-problem/

Jamal,

That is only proof if the overall balance by the IPCC was based on the estimates of the individual natural fluxes. That is not at all the case.

The overall balance is the difference between what is known as human emissions en what is measured as increase in the atmosphere. The difference between these two is the overall balance of all natural in and out fluxes together. The only errors involved are the errors in human CO2 emissions inventories and the measurement errors of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The first has a combined SD of less than 1.4 on a height of 8.9 GtC/y.
The second has a SD of 0.2 on a height of 4.5 GtC/y.

That means that for the overall balance of all together some 400 GtC as CO2 going in and out the atmosphere within a year, the error is less than roughly 2 GtC/y or 0.5%. By far more than accurate enough…

Dr. Ball:

You can pick any segment of the Carbon Cycle they show in Figure 1 (Their Figure 6-1, Fifth Assessment Report) and none of it is based on actual measures, that is real data

While terrestrial reservoirs are difficult to estimate, C content of the oceans is monitored for over 100 years, first sporadically, nowadays at several fixed locations and frequent ship surveys. From that we have a reasonable estimate of how much C in form of CO2-bi-carbonates is present in the (deep) oceans and how much it increased in the near surface layer over the past decades: about 10% of the change in the atmosphere.

Ocean-atmosphere and terrestrial-atmosphere exchanges are estimated on the base of O2 and δ13C changes, as these are different for oceans and vegetation:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

Again Dr. Ball, with a little more research you could have known that several estimates of the carbon cycle made by the IPCC are extrapolated from or based on real, measured, data.